Transcripts For CSPAN2 In Depth 20141005

Trouble. Whats that from . Guest that was my earlier subject, Antonin Scalia who said it kiddingly after justice on the sotomayor shook up a party by getting all the justices to dance the salsa with her. I use it to set the scene of a contrast its been between the woman who i is a genuine, somersaults come into this institution thats a wonderfully traditional, used to certain rhythms. The rhythms frankly our salsa. She did this wonderful display that shut everybody up at this end of term party and Justice Scalia who watched it come a summit usually shakes people up, right . Said i knew she would be trouble. He said it kiddingly but its a perfect line for all a bit of what greeted her. Host were you allowed to go to the party . Guest no, no. It was tough to get the information. You know, peter, how secretive this court is. A lot of people arent aware of how we never know what goes on in a conference on cases. Journalists are never invited to the end of the term party. In fact, when chief Justice John Roberts sent out invitations for this particular party, he reminded all the staff, there was just the fulltime staff, not any contractors, not any parttimers. It is a very tight family. Of course all the justices are appointed for life, it seems like many of the employees are, too. I was not at the party, but right after it occurred, a good source of mine told me about this incident with Justice Sotomayor breaking in the core of after the law clerks have put on a skit. Thats what works. The law clerks to the entertainment. The justices it was other people there and watch. She broke the decorum by putting on some salsa music and getting everybody to dance with her, including the justices. I found out about that and i started snooping around, and other justices told me about it. Can somebody give me the actual program, and then what i did as i went to individuals who i knew were there and i talked to the justices then sells about how they felt about it. In my in the note i said journalists are not allowed up there. Most people are not allowed there, but i recreated it. Host been reading it from breaking in it sounded a little uncomfortable. Guest the incident . Yes. In fact, well, people have dual reaction. First of all generally they like things to go as planned. The Supreme Court is a very bland institution. We know monday morning, the first monday in october when the justices start the term they start at 10 a. M. On the dollar. Be if they are, those of us inspectors should start to get nervous because we know theyre getting nervous, who is coming late. I cannot stress enough how this is down to the second sort of institution. Also more broadly certain expectations of how people behave, there are certain ropes, who gets to go here, who gets to go there, when people line up they line up according to the role in life. The reporters lined up one place, the lawyers lineup in another place. The justices, they come in through the back. Everyone has a certain place to go. At the end of the term party its been going on forever. The law clerks put on a skit, theyre parodies and the justices themselves do not perform. A. Are not a performative lot, generally speaking. So when Sonia Sotomayor does this it rattles and what theyre trying to figure out oh, my gosh, what do we do . First theres a lot of nervous laughter, and then people start to get into it and then people start to look at some people are trying. A few justices told me, as she approached me, i thought, im not going to get up and dance. Please dont come here. Then they get up because she is sort of a winning way. Remember it was a party. That was a party, and it happened to come at the end of it very difficult term. This was in june 2010. This was the term citizens united, determine which Marty Ginsberg, the husband of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was very ill and he actually died just three days before this party. So Ruth Bader Ginsburg ha had jt endured so those difficult days of her life, and Justice Sotomayor approaches are, and Justice Ginsburg shakes her head and says i dont want to get up and dance. Justice sotomayor says to her, marty wouldve wanted you to. Now, Marty Ginsberg was a very big personality. He was the kind of person who was the life of the party. So Justice Ginsburg actually got out of her seat and danced for a moment with Justice Sotomayor, and then she puts her hands up to Justice Sotomayors cheeks and says, thank you. So there was another mobile. It was very emotional. It was uncomfortable. So people werent sure what to make of it but mostly they liked it. Well, i think most people liked it. There were some who thought wait a minute, this isnt how things work here. The clerks do the entertaining, we are not. So anyway, it was a great scene to find out about and im glad it your book you write about Justice Sotomayor. The justices buried in the personal assessment as this match with any group. Some founder warm, amiable. Others under a broad and exasperating. At the human level these differences with her were not found guest isnt that so interesting . That paragraph took some time figure out what to say. Because i do want to make a big deal about a personality clash when its really not a big deal with it comes to the law. And also you should know these nine justices always close ranks. Among them the other differences and among them theyre rolling their eyes constantly. If i were to come to them and say, get a load of soandso, they would be very taken aback. Because an outsider cannot criticize one of their own. Again they have sort of a family dynamic going on. Theyre all appointed for life. They realize they have great incentive to get along even though theyre different. Some of these personality things, as i say in the human level they are not small. In the larger scheme of the laws, they are. I wanted to be able to convey that sort of delicate balance. I wanted to be able to convey the way in which she broke in. She has been breaking in all her life. I use that salsa incident to say it should weighted to another point, to a later end of the term party, it wouldnt have been as effective. Shes not the kind of person who waited her term. Thats why she became the first hispanic ever accounted to the Supreme Court. You think metaphorically, and i realize i thought it was helpful to readers to see this culture clash. Some people side with the traditionalists and say she should have never done that. Of the people say, well, you know, you go girl, kind of thing. Im hoping that people see it in the spirit of the kind of woman she is, the kind of justice shes becoming, and also to maybe pull back the curtain a little bit of what the Supreme Court is all about hospitality if im wrong but you seem to emphasize her puerto rican roots more than there has been been a growth. Is that fair . Guest heres the thing. She identifies herself primarily as a puerto rican because puerto rican heritage comes from the bronx. But she is used the term has been congress of the she is latina, and just so your viewers know, those words let tenet, latino and hispanic are all used interchangeably by just about everyone. The u. S. Census, researchers, academics, Justice Sotomayor. So Justice Sotomayor identified yourself pretty much a portrait of bush also identifies herself more broadly as latina. When she was appointed she became a symbol for all hispanics in america. One thing i should say, peter, that i hadnt quite appreciative back to 1990s when other hispanic candidates were being mentioned on the differences within the temerity about Puerto Ricans are viewed, how mexicanamericans ar are good, t cubanamericans argued, how hondurans argued. I felt like she helped educate differences within the larger umbrella, and i think she will refer to herself in many ways. Host again for your newest book, breaking in, in the early 1990s john roberts was a subtle tactician. But neither live raw ambition as would be proven when they ended up on the high court to get the more decade later. 2005, bushs son would nominate roberts to be the chief justice in the early 1990s. Roberts were tenuous office of the solicitor general mainly involve crafting legal positions and writing briefs for that office, but roberts was a smart political operative whose judgment was sought throughout the administration. For her par, sotomayor quickly learned to work to sides of the nomination process, as a nominate and as a conduit for information. Guest she was so politically savvy. As was he. They are stylistically very different. With the chief justice of the United States john roberts, a very buttondown individual. I could probably bet that if he had salsa before, he didnt put, he didnt put it on facebook, lets just say that. Shes just much more out there. Shes always been much greater with her movements, with the delactation of search for identity he is a much more reserved man but theyre both incredibly politically savvy. I love discovering in the early 1990s when he was in the Solicitor Generals Office he actually advised george h. W. Bush administration on judicial candidates. Lo and behold what name comes before them but that Sonia Sotomayor for District Court see. And they are crossing paths, if they were sitting around they would say i wasnt that ambitious. But face it, no one gets to the Supreme Court without impatience. One person i would say maybe should have an asterisk by his dimwitted in david souter, who shes succeeded he was all a bit more of an exit of justice but i think he still did not lack for ambition. But here you have john roberts who seem to be always making the right moves, and, obviously, quite effectively, and Sonia Sotomayor who came from a quite a bit different background but you really picked up on the political channels. What you have to do is remain visible, and nomination politics. And she learned a lot from that first nomination to i also have to say that she did acknowledge in her own memoir that once she set her feet on the path of the federal judiciary, and once she knew that she would be in some ways giving her career more emphasis than her own life, she did not spin on ambition. I think sometimes people dont want to be perceived as overly ambitious, but face it, this is washington. Host how value in your research was her autobiography that came out a year or two back . Guest very valuable. When i signed this contract it was in early 2010, and ive been aware behind the scenes that she was doing her member at the same time. Mine was never intended to be a biography i wanted it on Justice Sandra day oconnor and justice can be. I wanted to do how she ended up on the court and help her trajectory matched the rise of latinos in america. I knew i would have to build in some biography, and when i finish of doing this memoir, you know, it had been quite announced yet. I found out in a way that he couldnt write about because it wouldve been dashed and what event and the skew. Shes barely on the core, barely finished our salsa and she getting an agent and signed his contract. Again i will never underestimate her but she is very, very smart, and she shouldve very compelling story to tell as we saw in her excellent memoir, which is entitled my beloved world. I am one point thought maybe my my come out before hers. Mine was ready to, but i hadnt finished but im so glad i hadnt because i benefit so much from hers. When i talked to her once in her chambers, she said to me, did you learn anything new . She was aware that i was retracing offer footsteps, i was reading over old speeches, visiting the broad, visiting puerto rico. But i learned so much from the book and i also learned, i learned more her attitude about things. Because if you were aware of what she had said in her speeches leading up to our nomination, and at the time of our nomination, then what she writes in the book, is a much different attitude about how she regarded her mother, how she regarded her father but she revealed her father was an alcoholic. She revealed what it was like living with her mother who she characterized as very cold. Something we would have never, i would have never realized from her earlier speeches. So i was quite helped by her own autobiography, yes. Host as the legal editor of reuters, longtime Supreme Court reporter for usa today, Washington Post, the justices approach will come available to reporters . Guest i have had good luck getting in to see them. I have been able to get into all nine chambers for just about as long as ive been covering the court. But it takes a lot of work. Because they dont like just feel like outsiders to come in the middle like to talk for the public record. They dont like to talk casually to some of us. They are very generally reserve, cautious, nervous bunch, and what i had done over time is to try to win their trust and to say i will be very straight with you, if you do not want to speak for the record, i will work very hard to make sure that what i learned from you, first of all is not attributed to you, definitely but also use it in a careful way to find out more information. And i think over time on this overtime ive built up a record of trust because in 2003, four and five and is working on the Sandra Day Oconnor book i got all of them to talk to me. Most of them did speak for the record. And for scalia most of them spoke for the record, and scalia, Justice League gave me 12 different interviews. But Justice Sotomayor, to the person they did not want to speak for the record i frankly think part of that was because she was in your college kind of do think that a newer college. It makes things tricky are adequate to capture that in the book. I think it became come it was too new, too new, their tenure with her to want to go on the record but yet i was able to find that things. I was glad. I was glad of that. Its always a work in progress but i think other reporters have gotten to see justices and justices will state when they are selling books. Effect when theyre selling books they speak a lot. Thats the nature of selling books. Host where did you come up with a title for your biography on Antonin Scalia, american original dresser and a great story. Titles are always hard to come up with. You over think it. I always over think it. Editors overthink and your friends over think and everybody thats brilliant title came from editorial assistant, my fabulous editor, sarah creighton. What she saw from a more casual reader was, first of all, his original discussion i was explaining his approach to the constitution, and i thought that she figured, i thought it was really great, american original so captured. And as you know the subtitle is the life in constitution of the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. Ive always liked that title. I take no credit for it. Host in the bucky right scalia was shaped by the sicilian immigration expense. A single place in the family, alone among the adults and the deficits of his early years would be determinative in shaping the guest got me to tell you how i found out about his unique place in the family . Anybody covering the court would know about the fact that he was an only child but you will just know that he was an only child and he got lots of attention. Both his parents were academics. The father todd romance language at brooklyn college. The mother was a Public School teacher in queens. He had gotten a lot of attention. I would not have known that he was the only offspring of his generation if this hadnt happened. I happe happened to run into the justice and his wife any social occasion. I tend to be curious about birth order. Happened to be the oldest the night and i am curious about the fact he was an only child that i raised an only child. But i was commenting to the justice and his wife, only children can have certain demands of attention. And she said, do you know that none of brothers and sisters appearance on both sides have children . I thought, isnt that interesting, that he was not only a star in his own Little Family but he was the star it is huge italianamerican clan. Because his mother was one of seven, if i remember right, his mother was one of seven and his father was one of two. But he was the only offspring of their generation. And i thought, thats not the kind of thing you can pick up through research in the library of congress began to find that out from somebody close to the family. Host what is your amateur psychologists tell you about him being the only offspring . Guest well, you know, hey, the spotlight should always be shining on him. It doesnt take that takes observations of the court. He does bring a lot of attention on himself by what he says all the time. In fact, my book of them came out in 2000 theyre been some incidents since where peoples said he believed scalia said that . There are so many Justice Scalia stories, so little time. Host he took on the law. He believed his job was to say whether something was constitutional or not, and not to care whether he looked reasonable. Guest he would say, well, i do always look reasonable, dont i . He doesnt have a really strong selfconsciousness. And neither does Justice Sotomayor. Others to do. Others, i think its human nature to be quite selfconscious. My first subject Sandra Day Oconnor was quite aware of how she was being seen. But my second to were happier to sort of just plunge ahead and if you dont like it, thats your problem. I like it. Host Joan Biskupic, your first subject, Sandra Day Oconnor, what is her legacy going to be, what do you think . Guest she did so much. Personal she was the first woman justice, and in 1981 and a pointy of ron his legacy lives on in her. She was on for nearly 25 years. I cast her in some ways a politician on the court. She was an Arizona State senator. She was the first woman to be majority leader of a state senate house, a state senate. I thought that contribute a lot to her political sports. I like to say she went to washington knowing how to count both. Her legacy was figured out how to prevail. Winning meant a lot, just about everything she did, she was really competitive. And i said on the longer legacy has been abortionrights. She helped craft the standard that we now have for abortionrights and states can pass regulations. She wrote the opinion that prevailed until today and were not sure how secure it is, but to those three affirmative action opinion from the university of michigan case that allows colleges and universities to use rape as one of the criteria for accepting applicants. She was quite influential in the federalism area. She has a pretty deep legacy now because she was more moderate as a conservative. Someone that has been erased with the addition of samuel alito was more to the right than Justice Oconnor. Host welcome to the dnc spend too. For the next three hours our guest is Joan Biskupic. She has written three biographies of Supreme Court justices. She is a longtime Supreme Court reporter currently with reuters, formerly usa today and the Washington Post if you would like to dial in, talk about some of her books, some of the justices, some of the court cases and well spend the next three hours talking about the Supreme Court. 202 5853880 four of those you in the east and central time zone, 5853881 if you live out in the west. Or in the Mountain Time zone. And you can also committed via social media, facebook. Com booktv, at booktv is her twitter handle or send an email at booktv at cspan to work. Regarding Sandra Day Oconnor, once she found the middle, she never left it. She developed an incremental approach taking her cues from the country and pushing it ever so slight a. She would neither drive the culture of the nation nor serious upset it. Guest that was her. She still out there, you know. Shes still very much involved in trying to improve the integrity of local judicial elections. She still very active with her Civic Program trying to help young people understand the three branches of government and what goes on with the Supreme Court. I run into her into her every now and again and she says well, if it is a my author. She still doing okay. Shes 84 now, and i hope we are all like Sandra Day Oconnor when we had 84. Host that first sentence in the quote from your book, once she found the middle she never left it. Did she know, i mean, was she aware of her position in the court as the fifth vote many times . Guest yes. If you are the fifth vote, you know you are the fifth vote. Its so tight. Just think what its like. She comes on the court in 1981, Warren Burger is chief justice. The conservatives are amassing more power. Shes more in the camp of chief justice burger, and her old pal from stanford, William Rehnquist, who at the time is an associate justice within the, the chief justice himself. Shes aligning herself more with conservatives and she is resisting pressure from William Brennan who was the reigning liberal at the time. And i think Justice Oconnor had a little bit of a reaction going on. The more Justice Brennan tried to push it to the liberal side, the more she would enter early years stay on the right wing. Once William Rehnquist became chief, once William Brennan left the court, once we have more conservatives who were farther to the right come on, i think she found essential to be quite comfortable. Think of what happens in 1986 but rehnquist becomes chief. Scalia comes on. Scalia is far to the right of her. Shes not happy with the way brin is pushing her to the left budgets are been that happy with the way scalia wants you to go more to the right. I think she got a very countable home there and she very much aligned with the late conservative lewis powell, who was also much more of a centrist conservative. Host do lawyers tailor their cases did they tell him to Sandra Day Oconnor and now do they tailor them to Anthony Kennedy . Guest completely. This is the vote to get. His is deathly the vote to get. He wants it to me i think thats way overstated. But face it, he is the critical swing vote, and on things like affirmative action, on abortion, on samesex marriage. He has been the author of the leading key opinion on the rights of gay men and lesbians, and he will probably hold the key to whether this Supreme Court now takes up samesex marriage and how this court rules. And lawyers would tell you directly, its no secret that there try to figure out what does Anthony Kennedy want. Host back to your book on Sandra Day Oconnor him at the first woman on the sprinkler became its most influential justice, throughout the confirmation process, even when confronted like bombast of center, antiabortion picketers and pushing reporters, she has been the picture of decorum, a lady in pastels now to your most recent book, breaking in. You know and i dont mean to be grappling the one after been question endlessly for weeks at a time i was so frustrated by the minutia of what i was already being asked about and i said to a friend, i think they already know the color of my underwear. She believed the fact that she was a woman, a single woman, played a role in the query. They were private questions i was offended by. I was convinced they were not asking those questions of the male applicants. Guest two different styles. You have Sandra Day Oconnor who worked very hard to be the picture of femininity. I remember her saying at one point that she didnt even like wearing headsets because she thought that compromise her femininity. Lets think of the era. Shes born in 1930, she comes of age in the 50s. She is not a rabblerouser by any stretch of the imagination. But shes trying to figure out how to be most effective for her time. She wants to be visible. She does not want to be challenging. She wants to change things but she does not want to be overtly challenging for that change. Associate adopted certain convention but i think were very comfortable for her. She did go off on a range of sorts that lecture sitting around watcher while she wast there with the horses and cows. But once she was in the public eye she tended to adopt the conventions of the day. Flash forward, Justice Sotomayor born in 1954, things are much different. Shes able to buck conventions in some ways. Shes also, shes a new yorker. Shes already going to be a little bit more, shes going to be bolder with her personal style. Shes not going to tap it down. One person said to me, she doesnt happen to be puerto rican. She wants that to be up front. So she did before the confirmation hearing get rid of the dangling a rings and get rid of the redhill polish them and talk about how she got rid of those things to conform to what the administration wanted. Thats part of, that is part of how it works. And you want to get confirmed, and the administration wants to get you confirmed. The place to sort of show your identity in every way is not going to be during confirmation hearings. And both of my subjects got the. And, frankly, so did Justice Scalia. All three of them knew how to be nominees, and so did john roberts. And lets say that robert bork sort of did but not quite. He went into a little bit more combative and there were many reasons behind why then judge bork was defeated, but this is all part of the Public Theatre of washington time when has the nomination process always been as contentious as we have grown up knowing it to be . Guest its been very contentious at different points. Certainly getting back to the late 1700s it was contentious and other times, even in a lifetime of those of us were a little bit older, and know what happened, dont act like you dont know those names. You remember those names even though many of your viewers dont remember those names. Im talking about the late 60s and 70s, and Harry Blackmun even got his spot on the Supreme Court in 1970 as what he referred to as old number three. He was the third nominee put up after hayes worth and carswell. So we had come with a tricky moments before. But think of the 90s when Justice Ginsburg got through and Justice Breyer got through, appointees of william clinton, bill clinton. They both were confirmed i believe Justice Ginsburg, it was a 90 something for. Stephen breyer i think was 89 votes he got. Both were approved by overwhelming bipartisan supporters. And four justices taken and sotomayor and samuel alito, to a lesser extent john roberts, the votes were more divided. Host Joan Biskupic, how did you come to cover the Supreme Court . When did you start . Guest it was back in 1988, or nine. When i switched over to Congressional Quarterly. They had an opening for a Legal Affairs reporter. Actually i was interviewing for a labor reporter job but it turned out that the editor there knew i was crazy about the law. At the time id not even got my law degree and is mostly covered politics and government at the time but i always had an interest in courts. Is very wise editor said, let her cover the courts and letter cover Legal Affairs. So i started ages ago. This is in the late 80s at Congressional Quarterly covering the Senate Judiciary committee, Legal Affairs on mail and also picking up the Supreme Court as an additional beat. The Supreme Court wasnt supposed to really be at the core of my coverage. I was doing many things are happening on the hill. It was an exciting time to those with the years of immigration reform, the brady handgun control bill. We had two terrific nominations and Clarence Thomas and david souter. They were really hot, contentious moment, especially for the Clarence Thomas won in 1991. So i kept breaking off as much as it could to cover the core. In 1992 i was hired by the Washington Post to be its Supreme Court reporter. Then i shifted into Supreme Court fulltime. And really havent left a. I pick up other things along the way. And in 1989 is when i started doing law school at night at georgetown. Normal reporters cant do that now because of the 24 7 culture we have, but at the time i could because i was writing for a weekly magazine and i could, i could sort of pace my schedule but even i switched over to the Washington Post in 1992, i had about a year and have more to finish up my law degree. And it somehow worked out, so that was good. I state of the Washington Post for eight years and switched to usa today. Now at reuters i am not our main person covering the Supreme Court. Thats my partner, lawrence early. I do write about the Supreme Court but i brought obligations now. Host often Supreme Court nominees are described by the president s to nominate them as the most qualified person in the country. To be on the court. Guest part they all . Thats right, they are, but lets get real. There are many, many qualified people out there. The years that all three of my subjects were chosen, there were people who were equally qualified, if not more qualified. They years that Antonin Scalia was chosen and he was chosen over robert bork could have been picked the next year. Unfortunate for robert bork, the Senate Majority had flipped to republicans to democrats after he was chosen and made it too hard for him to get through. But they year that Sandra Day Oconnor was chosen, well, i dont know if Ronald Reagan wouldve said she was absolutely the most qualified out there. Certainly she was qualified for the job but remember sh should never serve on the federal court. But he had promised to appoint a woman and she knew that. She knew she was being chosen because she was a woman. And so what . Thats great. Thats what she would say, thats great. I was qualified. Was i the most absolute positive the best qualified person in america . Who is to say that is even is an under what criteria . Thats th the thing i get compas to get that a lot with, not so much with scalia, his detractors just dont want them there. But certainly with my current subject, i still here and i know she hears. [speaking russian] or qualification. But look at her background, 17 years on lower federal courts, for instance, in yale. Is she qualified . Certainly she is qualified. The two people who she was most intention with at the time were already taken and judge diane wood from the seventh circuit. Elena kagan got the nomination the next year. Judge would wouldve been perfectly qualified for that job. So there isnt just one person out there for the Cyprian Court and for anything. Host what is Clarence Thomas so reticent treachery he gives me good access and im glad. Im sorry he doesnt talk from the bench. He hasnt spoken from the bench during oral arguments since 2006, february 2006. I think it actually hurts him and it hurts his public profile because people are puzzled by it. School children who come to the court are puzzled by it. They think does he not have anything to say . Is he ashamed of something . What is this all about . He gets so reasons. He says welcome to my colleagues are doing plenty of talking anyway. I want to hear from the lawyers. He once told some schoolchildren that he had grown up somewhat selfconscious about the we spoke because of his poor roots down in savannah, and that hes lived selfconscious about his dialect. Buddies at he has a really great voice, a very deep, booming voice. So when you do hear him speak, is quite strong and quite commanding. Just remember off the top of my head, as little step at that jon stewart did with him when he hears his voice and his like, where is that coming from . He has a fabulous voice. Hes a smart individual and he could ask many questions that could probably shed light on the issue before the justices, but he has for reasons that only he knows stop asking questions post but its pretty wellknown that Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg our friends. On the other friendships on the court that are not as well known that our special like that treachery thats really special but that one is really special. They got to be very good pals when they were on the d. C. Circuit together. Thats the washington, d. C. Based federal Appeals Court. They were both former professors so they would exchange their draft opinions and ask each other for advice on writing advice just like to academics would do. Theyre both incredibly smart and they both love opera. One of them is much more out there in terms of his personality. Scalia wont stop talking, and she speak at such a slow pace that i cannot do any kind of imitation of her. She happens to be very personally shy also. She sometimes has trouble reading your eyes, but she is obviously quite commend and what she does on the law, and just come in several good matchup. I will never forget one time she said to me when us talking to her about the relationship and she said, i just love nina, which is his nickname. I love you but sometimes i would just like to strangle him. He really enjoys her. They spend their new year he eats together with their families at a dinner party. And ate lots of social things together. I dont think theres another pair on the court that could ever be comparable. In earlier years Justice Oconnor and lewis powell were very tight, very, very tight. Lewis powell is the justice who retired in 1987 can opening up to see that robert bork was nominated to. The wonderful thing about that relationship for me as a journalist and author was that he saved all her correspondence in his archives that are at washington and lee down in accident in virginia. So what i was researching the ak on her i was able to find all that correspondence and to see not only her personal observations about maneuvering on cases with lewis powell but also how she felt when she was diagnosed with cancer, when she went to the loss of her parents while she was on the court. So those two are very special relationship that i would say was almost as tight as the one between justices scalia and ginsburg. Host you probably saw this recent article in the Washington Post, this is Robert Barnes writing about erwin chemerinsky, retiring dean of university of californiairvine law school. Guest you dont mean retiring. Host i apologize. I made that the. He just came out with a new book and this is something that he writes in his book and this is reported. We should realize that this is an emperor that truly has no clothes. For too long weve treated the court as to the art the high priest of the law, released as it they are the stars and best lawyers in society. And then he writes his conclusion. The court has frequently failed throughout American History at its most important task at its most important moment. This is not easy for me to conclude or to say. Guest well, i love that you ready. First of all parts was by first editor of the Washington Post. Used to edit Supreme Court copy. Now he writes about. And we go way back. I read his book as a reader to kind of help with things and he read my latest. He read all three and it was tremendous helpful. And it was really helpful and Justice Sotomayor because he really understands this justice and he understands the court. Would i ever a doubt that a few of the Supreme Court . No. Now, are one is an advocate. He comes at this from a very distinct point of view. I am a journalist and author comes out from a different point of view. Im not sure to throw up my hands bigger times when cindy and i hear an opinion announced and i think gosh, you, like really . But i move on. Ive got to write about and i got to get both sides of got to get some understanding of why. And there are times i said and i think this is really good that this happened them that they didnt go an in a direction that some of us thought they might. But i would never Say Something as boldly as Erwin Chermerinsky would. I just wouldnt do. I think that is watched the court very carefully pick is is also born into my blue, yes, he was born in 1954, also i think in may of 1954 as Justice Sotomayor was. So he is wonderful perspectives. He went to harvard. He has been a law professor at duke and then he founded the university of California Law school at irvine. So he has a very wise perspective, but it is deathly a perspective that is pretty far on the left definitely. And pretty scrutinizing of the Supreme Court that has throughout its whole history, hes not just complaint in the book about the current Roberts Court thats more conservative. Hes also taking issue with things that were recorded at different times. The warren court that stand as a bulwark of liberalism. Host there are people in the audience, myself included, who see the Supreme Court as kind of a calculus equation. Its completely not understandable how they operate, what they do. But at the same time you say its very orderly and they know exactly what guest let me say this but if you are one of my editors i would say yes, very confusing. You need me to to you about it. But the truth is its not confusing. My monitor at the Washington Post was this is your Supreme Court practice is a Supreme Court that is there, it stands for justice. Now Erwin Chermerinsky thanks let it is down. Im sure it has. It has let down america but its one of three branches and there are checks on each branch. But heres how it works. I was just talking to a group of students the other day and one of the students, and a masters program, one of the students said you mean they dont start in january . They dont. It is like school. They begin in the fall. They begin on the first monday in october. Thats the official start date, but as your viewers know that jump the gun as they have in recent years with an order and what new cases for adding to the calendar for this term. So we are in whats known as the october 201415 sure that it starts on the first monday which is october 6. It will run to the end of june, just like school. What theyre doing during this time is decide what cases to take. That justices have discretion of what appeals and petitions they hear. They dont have to take up every case it comes to them the way lower courts have. They get literally hundreds, thousands of appeals, formally known as petitions, to the nature. Indicated they can choose. They normally take cases where there might be complex, conflicted roots b but lower corporate orchestrate of the law, or the take issues of big national importance, samesex marriage perhaps they will take. We will know in a couple of weeks. They are on a cycle where theyre deciding what cases today, starting in october they are also now subjecting these cases the world argument. So the first week in october your viewers and listeners are going to do than take up cases having to do with criminal law issues, religious freedom issues, labor issues. And then they will meet in private. When they meet in private they dont even have any of their law clerks are secretaries within. Its just the nine justices sitting around a table taking votes. They do that on wednesday said friday of the Supreme Court. And then after they have done that they start drafting opinions. They are like those. They draft the easy ones first. Basically in about november youll start to see some rulings and they will be mostly the easy rulings. Like the 90 once. So than some the tough ones will come out and by the end of june is when we finally get the really hardest cases that have been the toughest to resolve. And so its simple. Host who gets to draft of the cases . Guest thats a good question because its a majority do. Say tomorrow, not tomorrow, i know this will air say on october 6 to hear a case involving a test of the Fourth Amendment which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. And this case explores the idea of may Police Stopped a car that has a broken tail light and then use that incident to search the car . And find cocaine went under North Carolina law, you dont have to have two working to elect. Youll have to have one. The officer made a mistake. So its the sort of thing that could happen to a lot of people, except for the cocaine part may be. They will look at whether it was reasonable that the officer stopped the car and was able to search and found the cocaine. And they will hear oral arguments, and it will be an exciting hour of arguments for those of us who like this. And then on wednesday they will take a private boat. Host they will vote right away trip to im sorry. Im giving these but on october 8 they will take, they will take a private boat on that case. Everything is in average. The monday cases, they then talk about on wednesday in their private conference packages and wednesday they talk about on friday. In fact, i think thats the way the cycle goes. I know its private. I know that for sure. They will meet and go take a preliminary vote. Chief Justice John Roberts will be at the head of this rectangular table and he will say, you know, look, the topic didnt know that under North Carolina you only needed one working taillight. It was a reasonable mistake. Or he might say, look you know, its the letter of the law. We dont want officers not enforcing with the actual law is. I have no idea what will go on this conference because i this point have not heard the oral argument yet. They are yet to come. So the ticket eliminate the. Lets just say it breaks 54, and the chief is in the majority of the five and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are most liberal just as is with the minority, the four dissenters. Chief Justice Roberts will been a sensibly to write for the majority. The most senior justice on the winning side assigns that opinion. The most senior justice on the losing side i find the dissenting opinion. Anybody can write a concurrent on either side, but the general thinking of the court, at least now is that you want the strongest opinion with as many names on it to convey a clear ruling the Lower Court Judges and to the public. Lets begin take this North Carolina Fourth Amendment case. Lets just say that she has assigned Clarence Thomas to that, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has assigned the two of them start writing of the starts are going to trap and as you can the draft to everyone, to all mind. And now ill work on computers but the Supreme Court is still oldfashioned enough that messengers actually take the paper drafts and run them from chamber to chamber. Thats what i a tremendous access to what i did the first two books, the papers of lewis powell, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun. So it was great to see these drafts. And the justice, the recipient justices markings on them. Said he would ask for changes. This goes on, if its a straightforward case they can use result in a couple of weeks. If its a difficult case and they start having towards a brighter, even to the footnotes, it could take literally months. And then we just do what happens in the end. Someone like me is always trying to recreate what went on behind the scenes. I love when i can find out information. I love it more when i get the document because then you actually see what happened. Its like anything. You try to recreate the scene and have only three justices to you what happened, you know youre lucky enough to through a telling you but you also know, well, just three visions of what actually went on. So then i would say sometime in, lets say for the North Carolina case i would suggest we could hear as early as november but probably as late as edward, march, even june if it tends to be tricky. I dont think it will be tricky for them but then well hear world. It will be announced from the bench, the justice of the majority opinion will announce a brief synopsis from the bench. The dissenting justice urges to does not read his dissent except if theres real anger. We live for those moments. Because its more dramatic. It gives us something to write about but it gives the public a little bit more attention if it helps with the understanding of the dueling issues of the case. In june we tend to get a few dissents read from the bench but generally speaking at the simple only speak on paper cut for how important are the oral arguments . How much time is spent to the case prior to oral arguments . Guest or vitamins are important in many respects. I wouldnt say they are determined at a dont think the justice would either because the justices, these are reading people, people are marking up text, people work with highlighters. People like us doing that kind of thing understanding documents. Rulings are based on prior rulings. Rulings are based on precedent. Thats what this court is about. Thats another part of rhythm. They love president. The word stare decisis. They dont want to disrupt a pattern of where the law has been before. The main thing that will influence how the rule, lets use this north to let a criminal law case. The main thing they will look at our past rulings on what is invisible stop, what is the Fourth Amendment on unreason stops, searches and seizures. Thats going to guide in part where theyre going to go. Then what else will guide them are the written briefs from both sides. Thats where the lawyers better be sharp because they want to cast something in writing so a just and can go to that writing and perhaps pick up language, perhaps be convinced of something he or she hadnt been convinced of before. Then you have this great oral argument moment. This is the hourlong hearing where the nine justices are on this mahogany bench, slightly elevated. You can mostly just see their heads, and then the lawyers standing at his lectern and put them down in the well and we are all off to the side watching and eagerly trying to say what they will seize upon to figure out what do they think is important. What do they think might be about it . In several dynamics emerge during oral arguments. The most obvious one for your viewers is the justices get information. They get answers to their own troubling questions. That justices might, again just because of the justices point of view, they get to troubleshoot both sides. The other thing from the justices point of view is basically to each other perhaps the own persuasive argument. They go into this case thinking if they are investing in fourth and in the law they want the case perhaps to come out a certain way. They might have some instincts themselves that they would like to signal to the colleagues. So they might ask questions a certain way saying, really, have we ever rolled that an officer can stop someone based on a misunderstanding of law, britain law . Shouldnt the officer have its act together to know what the law says . Or somebody could say give me a break, i wouldve thought he would have kept you working to elect in North Carolina. You might have those kinds of questions. So they might signal this. Unusually lets take samesex marriage but youre going to get weightier argued from the justices to each other because, dear, they have not talked to each other about this case before this moment. They dont know where it each other stands on this issue. So theyre going to use oral argument to telegraph some pics to each other in cases of great importance. So you got a couple of different agendas from the justices point of view. From the advocates point of view, this is his or her moment to find out what do they need to know to rule for me, and to head on confront the other side. They have dueled inviting but they have not been matched up in the moment. And tomorrow, again, im sorry to say do more, but lets just say the date, october 6, jeff fisher was a stanford law professor will stand up and represent the defendant who was charged with cocaine trafficking that arose out of this stop from the headlight. And you will make the strongest origin he can all be have opted in fy that conviction shouldnt stand. But what is going to do is he will have two or three points that he wants to make sure that when they go back to the private conference, that they have in their head, and he also wants what might be troubling individual justice so he can meet it head on. He also wants to hear what the of the council is going to say for the state of North Carolina so that he can say, you might be sympathetic to this point of view, but just turn the lens all of it and think of it this way. So a lot is going to happen in that hour. And again because the first monday in october case is not one that many of your viewers would know about, its not going to get a lot of attention. But pretty soon were going to of the cases that they will be really watching for our the obama sponsored Health Care Law. Probably on samesex marriage, and what i just described is going to happen in going to have in a more intense fashion and over laundry because i but the chief justice at the pickup samesex marriage gives a closer to ours rather than the one hour of oral arguments transport so an official vote is done, this theoretical case that we are working, the official vote is done the wednesday after the monday hearing . Guest yes. Host in the room, nine justice can do they raise their hand cut for no. Using the word official is not my. I was the it is presented. Its of them so official but nobody is set in stone. You can change your mind. In fact, we have lots of reports about during the First Episode of the obama sponsored Health Care Law of shifting a vote that you are allowed to change about as you go along. You might not want to change afoot as you go along because it says everyone in a different direction. Like that happens. And actually the justices are happy when they can convince a colleague to change his or her vote. It would be like anything, its rhetoric. They all coming with the idea of where things should go but then they see whether, does it right. And maybe you get convinced of something but, in fact, i have one of my favorite chapters in this book is when Justice Sotomayor actually convinced our colleagues in an affirmative action case through the writing, through what she was daring them, a position that she said, she sort of derrida them in the president that they taken on a affirmative action. Certainly we saw some shifting vote on the, or at least i found out about that. So thats whats going to happen is they take this preliminary vote wednesday and friday, and then they see if it rights. Then they continue the dialogue. I love the idea of this conversation in writing. They have this conversation and it will become it doesnt sound as natural as it would be to the way you and i would converge but it is very natural for them. They feel really comfortable with the memos. They feel much more accountable with memos that in person. Justice William Brennan was known for visiting offices. Justice breyer likes to call people on the phone and talk. Generally speaking this isnt a group that goes and gets in the face of a colleague to say, you are voting that way . Come on, come on. Havent you read president . Host how important are the distance to the rule of law . Guest well, the dissenters would say theyre very important because maybe they could convince people down the road. The justices themselves dream of the day a decent becomes the majority opinion and that is certainly happened. Distance to become majority opinions in such cases, especially if it is five for and yet be changed in the makeup of the Supreme Court. A decent can become quite influential. A decent has a bit more leeway to speak to the public also. You tend to get a lot more speech and dissent because, first of all, a justice might be speaking only for himself sometimes and generally become unhinged, or say you will route the day when rue the day when this plays out in america. So they speak to colleagues who might change their minds down the road, and then they also speak to the public. Heres another thing, they can speak to lower courts and say you might be reading this in the majority opinion but take caution not to do this and this. Or famously most recently just as scully and his dissenting opinions is but Justice Scalia has said these rulings are opening the door to samesex marriage, and in the windsor case in june 2013, when the justices really did something narrow and striking down a provision didnt even comment on marriage rights. Justice scalia said the game is over, this is all about marriage. Lower court judges friendly said yeah, i think we believe and dissent and were going to rule that windsor takes it much further towards samesex marriage nationwide. Host Joan Biskupic is our guest. Now is your turn. If you cant get there on the phone lines you can also get to on social media. At booktv is our twitter handle. Yoyou can send an email to booktv cspan. Org and final you can make a comment on our facebook page, facebook. Com booktv. And callers, thank you for your patience but well be right with you. Dont hang up. I want to start with his email. He talked a lot about five for decisions and this is from alan steinberg. He emails in, im very nervous about five for decisions. Has any responsible party ever suggested that a decision in most cases should require a super majority, say 63 . Guest justices dont like fight for decisions either but if youre in the majority youll take what you can get. They dont like to appear so divided. Or polarized, which they are. They brag about their 90 decision. That like to talk about the reports always talk about the 54, but we are unanimous many times over. They are unanimous in the ones that are as controversial. The 54 cases are the ones that can affect our lives. For example, in the windsor decisions i was referring to earlier, which involved a part of it of him by the name of edith went who was challenging the defense of marriage act trying to seek federal benefits in a estate taxes even though she was married to another woman, not to him into at the time federal law said these benefits can only extend to marriages that have a husband and a wife. Now, your emailer suggested Something Like that, a big decision like that maybe shouldve been 63. They wont go there. They feel like, and when your only comment if you like look, a majority is majority. And only dealing with nine people. Its hard enough to get a majority in some of these cases. Even to get 63 would be virtually impossible for a lot of these but the most recent abortion rights cases have all come down five or. A from an action to become self i4. Religion rights to the combat 54. Its the nature of the institution. Super majority work and the legislative branch but they dont work on the judicial branch. Host legal editor and reporter, author, Joan Biskupic is our guest. Sandra day oconnor, her book, sandra day oconner how the first woman on the Supreme Court became its most influential justice came out in 2005. American original the life and constitution of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, 2009. Her most recent book is on Sonia Sotomayor, breaking in the rise of Sonia Sotomayor and the politics of justice. Nancy in lagrange georgia. Youve been very patient to you on with Joan Biskupic. Caller good afternoon. I wanted to ask this this cubic about, i am big on Justice Oconnor and i know that she was [inaudible] my question is about a Fourth Amendment case in public health. It was chief Justice Rehnquists dissent in philadelphia versus new jersey that got me interested in the court but i know that he declared for Justice Jackson an underwent ife knows of any cases that came out of nuremberg that impacted the court and if those decisions actually impacted bank was dissent in philadelphia versus new jersey . Guest thanks to the color. And im off my right of the top of a hit with all the details of the case so im going to jump to what youre asking about with Justice Jackson and William Rehnquist and the great friendship between Justice Oconnor, the caller is Interest Income and William Rehnquist. And im glad she mentioned that because peter, youre asking about other friends on the court. As nancy just mention in her call, Justice Oconnor and Justice Rehnquist knew each other, they actually even dated when youre both at Stanford Law School. He went out and visited the family ranch in arizona and she tells if i was a story about that in her own memoir. So they were good pals. They were good pals personally. She separated herself from him on the law toward the end of her tenure. But William Rehnquist is interesting in terms of the jackson connection, and i will just tell the caller something about that. He found that clerkship in a way that other western law students probably wouldve never gotten clerkships. Justice jackson came out to palo alto in 1952 i believe to help dedicate what was then a new Stanford Law School building, and while he was there he met rehnquist and he was able to say i like to cook for you, wouldnt it is, you know, clerk, and sort persuade Justice Jackson to take them on in a way as i said from the west to didnt regulate traveled to washington interviews would have been able to do. So your caller knows a lot of the history of these relationships and im so i cant comment more on how his expenses on the nuremberg panel and what trickledown might have affected things. But there wasnt interconnectedness of there. Host noted in your book, Sandra Day Oconnor, ken starr was involved in her nomination. Guest i loved learning that story. It is the most fun part about doing these books is what you find out that you hadnt known before. So everybody whos listening knows of ken starr as a former solicitor general. They know him mostly for the Monica Lewinsky report during president bill clintons impeachment. Host and a president of baylor, right . Guest yes. Is that what comes to peoples my first . No. It is also solicitor general of the United States and people forget that because all the starr report and the monica whiskey. He is president of baylor, but back in 1981, he was an assistant in the Justice Department who was tasked going to visit arizona and to visit this woman had never heard of, Sandra Day Oconnor come to see could she possibly be material for the u. S. Supreme court . He goes out there with another guy, jonathan rose, who still an active lawyer in town, and they go to her house in scottsdale host Paradise Valley. Guest Paradise Valley. I could remember which suburb. How could i forget Paradise Valley . And she has, this is something interesting, jewish is recovering from major surgery. Shes recovering from major surgery during this incident. Shes someone who these guys in washington have never heard of, and shes got to impress them with our constitutional law ability, that she can withstand what goes on during the nomination process. Shes got to hold it all together in this post surgery modicum and, of course, shes the kind of person she is she serves them this exquisite salmon salad and they can still member. So they are there and ken starr and john rose said later that they really understood what kind of person she was. That she was quite effective in making her own case, even though as i said, should not even been in any federal court. She was actually at the time she was on an Arizona Court but it wasnt arizona Supreme Court. She was ready for them. She was really ready for them. Both she and Sonia Sotomayor for very Political Savvy and they knew what it would take and they both did their homework done for john in new york, good afternoon. Caller good afternoon. I have actually become it that i would like to just to please comment on it. And that is that, in my perspective president have limited their appointments recently, recent president. The candidates have served on courts and primarily are graduates of a few prestigious law schools. But in the past it was common for president to select candidates from the political arena. You mentioned robert jackson. They brought a practical fear for the issues that they had to decide on the court. In my opinion thats absent today. And the other question, just a quick question is where did the four judge ruled come from academic who is going to what cases the Court Ordered her . Guest those are good questions, i like those. Great questions. One is nice and brought and one is down to the specifics of how this place works. First of all im glad i call the race to because its so true. When you think of the warren court, earl ward, former governor of california, people who were sectors, people have been in the Justice Department. Your people have been out there, people who have run for public office. That is all change. In fact, Sandra Day Oconnor during their yearly 25 years on the bench, she was the only one among those nine would ever even stood for public election. Again, back in arizona. And now with exception of elena kagan, every single one of the justices came from a lower federal Appeals Court bench. Your caller is absent be right, that the experience level has been narrowed. And also all of them have either graduated from them im going to put asterisk on this, all of them either attended yale or harbored for law school. Justice ginsburg attended harvard and didnt finish at harvard. She finished up at columbia as of course no bad school itself. Theyre all ivy league. Shes finished at columbia because she moved to new york city with her husband was a year ahead of her or his job at the time in the 50s. So you have all these justices who come from a fairly narrow band of expense. Of course, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have their different backgrounds through being only the second woman on the court, Justice Ginsburg, the first lady and and, of course, the second africanamerican, Clarence Thomas. So they bring a different perspective to those things but they still come from sort of a narrow range of experience. And the caller has hit upon something that president s themselves have thought about bucking. Bill clinton spent a lot of time trying to persuade mario cuomo who at the time had just recently been new york governor, to be a nominee. He tried to persuade George Mitchell had been Senate Minority leader to be on the court. He tried to persuade Richard Riley of the time i believe was education secretary. And pieces we considered Bruce Babbitt who as interior secretary. Bill clinton thought about going that route. And i think president obama might have a little way thought about that, but the safer nominees are nominees who have a track record in writing opinions. Thats what president s have gravitated towards. And i think many people think its a loss to the country. Regionalism, we have five justices know who are from the boroughs of the bronx or from new jersey. So its definitely an east coast dominated court. Summerlike Sandra Day Oconnor really understood water rights and great west is gone. Two of our justices grew up in the west but they hardly are westerners into traditional vein. Stephen breyer grew up in san francisco, and then went to harvard and taught at harvard. Hes got more east coast sensibly i think the west coast in some ways. And Nancy Kennedy tasha Anthony Kennedy grew up in sacramento, but he went and he also went to harvard and then to the London School of economics. Host the second question that john had. Guest this is good. This is important for people to know. Thank you for memory that he asked the. Hes talking about how many justice it takes to grant tertiary or to say we will take that case. Right now asked the justice decide whether to take up the samesex marriage is an issue, it takes of course five justices to decide it but only for to say we want to hear it. And thats been the way as long as ive been covering the court for a really long time, so i dont know when it started. I think it should one not known to the public mainly because people dont get interest in what happens but dont takes for justices to grant. And sometimes one of those four justices who might think we should we take up this case because we got a Lower Court Ruling doesnt seem so wise, might frankly vote against it not one in the Supreme Court then as a majority to come in and national law, a role that maybe could have more harm, at least in the justice point of view, do you know what i mean . Defensive vote on that, not just votes for granted. Host javier, miami. Caller yes. This is an observation and the question. Referring to Justice Oconnor, and you describe are as chanting quoteunquote abortionrights. Guest but her legacy certainly does involve abortion rights. And i presume what the caller was saying is, you know, how fair is that . How fair is that in terms of a womans right to end a pregnancy versus people on the other side who say life begins at conception, there is no right to abortion in the constitution, where does the Supreme Court get off doing this . And that is an enduring dilemma. The Supreme Court in 1973 issued its roe v. Wade decision, and it has remained so controversial til today. So i think that its one that People Struggle with, its one that judges continue to struggle with. I wouldnt be surprised if we didnt get another case back there soon. We had a very controversial ruling out of texas recently that has caused several clinics there to start to shut their doors. So abortion remains an incredibly difficult topic. I remember when i first started writing about abortion rights, i likened it to controversy over the vietnam war. Well, nobodys talking about the vietnam war anymore, and theyre still talking about abortion rights. Host in the chapter from your book on Sandra Day Oconnor guest sure. Host shifting ground on abortion is the name of the chapter. You write, at bottom her opinion reflected her brand of judging in the face of strong antiroe rhetoric from the chief justice and a near majority, she had retreated from a position that could have reversed the 1973 landmark. This would happen in other areas of the law too. She would step to the brink and then back away. Her opinion in webster v. Reproductive Health Services was a pivot that would set her in another direction, but that would be clear only when she took her next step. Guest that was right. [laughter] thats right. That took me a long time to craft also, but thats right. She, just to also tell your caller, that she was actually much more in the camp against abortion rights in her early tenure there. She always had very mixed feelings on it, certainly, and its a tough issue. Its a very tough issue. She would acknowledge, and theres just people at the extremes who say i dont see why its so tough, but its tough, and she found it tough. And what happened after the 1989 webster ruling which caused huge uproar nationwide, and there were big marches here in washington, d. C. Against that ruling, Justice Oconnor pulled back. She pulled back, and she realized how important the right was. And she helped engineer the decision that the nation got in 1992 in the casey ruling that upheld abortion rights and set the standard that we now have that says that state regulations may not put an undue burden on a woman seeking to end a pregnancy. And so she i dont know if id say she changed her mind, but she altered her thinking enough to become a stronger supporter of the basic right than she had been originally. Host velma, carlsbad, california, youre on with Joan Biskupic. Caller good afternoon. Im very interested in your opinion on the passage of citizens united. Im really quite disturbed by this, and i would like to know if you think this will be reversed. Host velma, my guess is that Joan Biskupic will not share necessarily her opinion on the case. What, whats your opinion on the case . Why does it disturb you . Caller it disturbs me because i feel its a threat to our democracy. And being, and also because, you know, how it will affect the power of the individual vote of an american. Host thank you, maam. Joan biskupic. Citizenned united. Guest yes. The callers referring to a case thats not as controversial as roe v. Wade, but a good runnerup definitely. Issued in january of 2010 by a 54 vote referring to your other caller there the justices said that the congress was wrong to set limits on certain spending by corporations and labor unions. And it allowed much more corporate money into campaigns. Its been seen as giving a boost to super pacs, its been seen to just letting much more money in to the democratic process and favoring corporations over individuals speech rights. And its 54. There is a chance it could be reversed down the road, but that would take a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court. Right now those five conservatives who ruled that way chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and samuel alito are all there, all fairly healthy, none of them giving signals about retirement. And as im sure your caller knows because she was so concerned about this ruling, they have followed it up with other decisions and actions that, essentially, reinforce it. I should note that the one time last term that we had a major disruption in the courtroom where going back to the earlier, prior discussion, there are no major disruptions at the Supreme Court during oral arguments, somebody stood up and actually complained about citizens united, had an outburst, and the chief justice had him taken away. But at the same time, somebody secretly recorded him and put the recording on youtube. As a result of that incident which, again, was sparked by citizens united. So you can feel that theres a lot of passion about that case. The security screening to get into the courtroom is much tougher now. Just phyllis is in ridge crest, california. Phyllis, youre on booktv. Caller yes, good day. How are you . Host good. Caller yes. I have just one question ive been thinking of several years now, that how come such an important body of politic such as the justices are able to sit for their whole lifetime if they choose to do so . How come they arent given a term, maybe 20 years, maybe three terms . Because being that theyre making these moral value judgments and the policies and the thoughts and ideas of the american citizenry isnt always reflective of what they themselves are making when they make can excuse me when they make these judgments, judgment calls. So, you know, maybe sometime in the future we should consider at least having them appointed only as long as the president that appoints them is in office as well as maybe giving them a 20year term just like anybody else who gets a job. You dont sit there and work all the days of your life, you know, on that job. You burn out. Everybody burns out. So we have to think, i think, we should consider taking these justices, giving them a term of serving so that we can get a better reflection of the ideas and the moral values that the American People really host thank you, maam. Caller thank you. Guest its a discussion that comes up, but its in the constitution. Theyre appointed for life. For better or for worse. The framers of the constitution felt that would be the best way to insulate them from politics, so that they werent effectively running for office, or they didnt have to please the person who had appointed them. So there were benefits to the idea of this impartial judiciary, of a judiciary that would have more integrity, be blind to certain political constraints that the other branches would face. So thats, thats the background of why our Supreme Court justices and, frankly, every member of the federal bench from District Court judges up to the Appeals Court level to the Supreme Court level on the federal bench are appointed for life. Now, you get complaints about that, but they tend to be they didnt tend not to be like the callers complaint. The callers raising concerns about burnout, bringing your own moral judgment to it that, you know, might be outdated after time. Usually it comes down to kind of questions of politics of one justice over another. Sometimes it comes down to why is that liberal still hanging in there. Justice John Paul Stevens retired at 90 and, boy, was he a active, freethinking 90yearold. Justice douglas, basically, had to be willed out. So, you know, it depends on how long they hold on. Chief Justice Rehnquist really, really wanted to hold on, and what does he do . He died in office, september 3, 2005, from thyroid cancer. He thought he could last another term, and he couldnt. So they tend to think that appointed for life means appointed for life and then death. And they hang in there. Now, Justice Oconnor left just shy of 25 years, but she left in part to go home to take care of her husband who had alzheimers at the time. He ended up dying a few years later, and her colleagues including Justice Ruth Bader beginnings burg think that she regretted leaving when she did. Host why . Guest just because she well, twofold. Its both personal and professional. Shes left to take care of her husband who was ailing, but she couldnt adequately take care of him, so he ended up in an assisted living home because his disease had progressed far enough. And she ended up herself being quite active and able to keep being out there professionally, so maybe she didnt need to leave when she did. Its, its a personal choice, and once you leave, your world just isnt the same. Host well, just to follow up on that guest yeah. Host Louise Houseman asks that question, whether or not Justice Oconnor regretted leaving the court which youve talked about. But number two, to bring up what the last caller brought up, theres a belief that the Supreme Courts decisions in the last 20 years have become increasingly politicized. What is your opinion . Guest okay, ill take both of them. First of all, Justice Oconnor herself has never said to me i really regret leaving. I dont think she would ever say that to anyone. Shes the kind of person who makes a decision, sticks with it and keeps rowing in the same direction. But i do know that it has been subject of speculation, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said directly to me, you know, i wonder if sandra regrets it. So thats to answer that question. And i think that if i had to bet money, id say that somewhere deep in her heart, Justice Oconnor probably does regret it in some way, because its been nearly a full decade since shes been off. Okay, now the political polarization. I think that this court is polarized, polarized in politics and ideology, but its not all that it is, and they surprise us sometimes. With the chief justices vote, upheld obamacare. Theyve taken more incremental steps on hot button issues like affirmative action when i didnt think they would. So its not all of a complete piece, but if you look just in terms of whos on this court now compared to where the kinds of differences we might have had in earlier decades, all five of the most, the strongest conservatives were put on by republican president s. We didnt have and the four more liberal justices were put on by democratic president s. We didnt have that before, you know, there were democratic appointees like byron white appointed by jfk who tended to vote more conservative, and we had republican appointees like John Paul Stevens who voted more liberal. So that might have given more confidence to people that politic wasnt playing a role, but now we have this unique Political Division of 54 which, i think, helps feed the Public Perception about politics at the court. Host is it unusual to have two former living, relatively healthy justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day Oconnor . Guest no. No. In the olden days, in the earlier decades like, for example, Warren Burger stepped down to head the constitution committee, so he, lets see, he stepped down in 86 and didnt die until mid 90s, so he was around. Harry blackman stepped down in 05 am i remembering that right . No, no, no. He stepped down in because breyer succeeded him. So he steps down in 94 and then dies about a decade later. And byron white stepped down in 91, he was succeeded by Ruth Bader Ginsburg youre testing my memory for all these dates, yes, i can tell. Anyway, its not unusual, peter. Host currently on the court there are two president obama nominees, there are two clinton nominees, one reagan nominee, three george w. Bush justices and one george h. W. Bush justice. Guest right. Host stanley in maryland, please go ahead with your question or comment for Joan Biskupic. Caller i am struck that there are two myths that are existing regarding the Supreme Court; one that it is rational and, two, that it is based on the constitution. I had a professor in law school many, many years ago who was also a Circuit Court judge who said that every judge should be psychoanalyzed before hes on the court. And im struck by the fact that all of the people considered the conservative justices are catholic men, all of the usually thought of as liberal justices are jewish or women, and im just wondering whether that gives us any confidence of the court as a rational body at all. Host stanley, are you a lawyer . Caller yes. Host and what kind of law do you practice . Caller mediation. I worked as a mediator for many years. Im retired now. Host thank you, sir. Joan biskupic. Guest thanks for the question. And im glad to talk about the demographics in terms of religion and gender. You know, is the court rational . Again, thats in the eye of the beholder, but i want to talk about something that the caller raised thats serious in terms of how the public should perceive the religious differences. The callers absolutely right that the five most conservative justices happen to be roman catholic. The five men i just mentioned are roman catholic. Now, Sonia Sotomayor is also roman catholic, she was raised roman catholic, and she doesnt vote with them on most of these tough social issues. The three others in the liberal wing happen to be jewish, of different everybodys sort of a different degree of how much they adhere to the their religious thinking, how much they go to church [laughter] how much they abide. Im trying to remember the last time you know, a couple times ill see justices come in on Ash Wednesday with ashes, but not all the catholics would on Ash Wednesday. So it varies in terms of how their catholic beliefs feed into how they vote. And what they would say to a person is they dont. Let me tell you Something Else about the catholicism at the court. William brennan was a catholic, and he was one of the strongest supporters of abortion rights. So i cant, i cant say that this breaks down on religious grounds for their reasoning, but it does break down just as a matter of identification, that the five catholics tend to vote more conservatively, and the three jewish justices along with Sonia Sotomayor tend to vote more liberally. And i do have to say that i think it tells us about the place of religion in america that when barack obama appointed elena kagan to the court in 2010 to succeed our last partisan on the court, her religion wasnt an issue. She happens to be jewish. It meant that we would now have a court of six catholics and three jews, no protestants. Protestants, of course, have run the world forever. [laughter] so it was kind of interesting that the wasp idea had suddenly disappeared from the Supreme Court. But people didnt object. And there was a time actually in the early 90s when i had some lawyers say to me now that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been appointed, it will be harder for Stephen Breyer to be appointed, and it wasnt. So it is, it is interesting to see, and it does shatter in some ways some of the stereotypes about how the public might view religion, but its still there. The religion cases are almost as tough at the court as the abortion cases. Host what is the red math . Guest oh. Okay, the red mass which is celebrated like, as were speaking, right . On the sunday before the first monday in october, its held at st. Matthews Cathedral Church i think thats the official name of it the apostle here in downtown washington. And its, essentially, the kickoff for, of the its a riggsal mass held with traditional mass held with, i think it was originally red garments that priests and bishops wear for this. Thats how it got the name, red mass. And its attended by not just catholics in washington, d. C. Who are involved in the law. Stephen breyer, as i said whos jewish, often will attend. And its quite ceremonial and its mainly just a pray for good judgment. On the old days i would go on occasion just to see the justices there. Host and were showing you this years red mass guest oh, good. Host you can see elena kagan guest can i turn around and look . Host thats fine. Guest okay, good. Host john roberts and the whole gang. Guest theres elena kagan. Host so its not official, its just a tradition that developed. Guest yes. To say its im not sure, i dont want to try to characterize what the Catholic Church is saying, but i believe its saying, you know, heres to encourage good judgment and not necessarily religious judgment, but just good judgment for all who are involved in the law. Its not just for judges, lawyers will attend also. Host we have an hour and a half left with our guest, Joan Biskupic. Shes written biographies on Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day Oconnor and most recently on justice Sonia Sotomayor. Were talking about those as well as the Supreme Court. Hour and a half left. But, first, we went to her house to see her writing. Guest my process is basically the same. I put a lot of energy into the proposal itself, because i want to make sure that i want to live with this person for many years, that i want to take time away from my family, you know, work late at night, work on weekends because thats when i do the bulk of the work. So i write a pretty indepth proposal, and then once i get the okay from a publisher, then i basically do a lot of research. I research for months and months, and then i start writing, research, writing, research, writing. And i do mix it up. And ive found that even until the very end with Justice Sotomayor, i was still looking up things, still doing extra reading as i was still writing. And i find also its quite motivating to for me, at least to mix the two processes. This is the hardest part, the time crunch. And this one was much harder than the first two. For the Justice Oconnor book, i took off nine months from my day job. I split up the time, and i and then for the Justice Scalia book, i was off for six months. For this one i had a summer at the Woodrow Wilson center. And i just want to say that the Woodrow Wilson center here in town is fabulous. It helps people like me, other journalists write books. So i took off some time early on. But then in february 2012 when i switched to reuters and had a more demanding job, i thought i am never going to finish this book because i would come home late at night, i would have fairly long days, and i would come home late at night, id fix dinner, and my husband would go read or watch tv, and i would come in here and look at this computer or first, i was working at the upstairs one, and that one broke, so id come in here, work on on the this compu, and id think i dont know how im going to get this done because, of course, youre exhausted. I happen to get up very early for work. And then id work on weekends. I would do all sorts of things for motivation. Mainly, you know, im a real deadline person, so i tend to get things done. But its very hard to get things done when youre exhausted, of course. So i would do research, id work in here, id work in the living room, id work upstairs, id go to the library of congress. I just kept going. And i played all sorts of tricks on myself. I would break down my increments and think its like i used to say to my daughter when she lived at home, if anything happens to me, please, destroy all those postits that say in this 15 minute increment you do this. But i found if you work in those short chunks, youre getting things done. Youre like, okay, cross that off. Im a great list maker, and i love to cross things off my list. So thats how it gets done. [laughter] host Joan Biskupic, south side of chicago, huh . Guest yes. Host why . [laughter] why are you from that area . Guest i couldnt control where they birthed me, yeah. My parents both came from first generation homes. My mother, irish, my father croatian, and they grew up on the south id of chicago side of chicago in the beverly area for people who know the south side, and those of us who are from the south side tend to identify ourselves that way. When i was at the Washington Post, there were three or four of us, and we used to have to do these mini bios, and those of us from the south side would say we are from the south side of chicago. So i was born and raised there and moved out to the suburbs when i was at the end of high school. But both parents from there, and i love that my own daughter when she got old enough went back to the university of chicago, which is on the south side i always say the brainy south side, not exactly where i grew up when she went to college. Host were your Parents College graduates . Guest they were, they were. They were slightly unusual in the neighborhood. My father was, at least, because he had a law degree. He was a lawyer. My mother, they met at loyola, actually. They both went to loyola at different points; my father for law school and my mother for undergrad. And she taught. She was a teacher until i was born which was pretty quickly after they were married. So she taught and then she had all these children. So they were both, they were both educated, and they both were very much interested in words. My father went on to do a lot of municipal law, represented the city of Chicago Fire Department at different points and then, you know, various municipalities in the region and was, essentially, in a maul office with a partner small office with a partner as he did that. He wasnt with a big firm. Host do you remember the first time that you were interested in law . Guest i was always interested in it. My early journalism jobs were covering government and politics, but i found that i gravitated toward the courts. I was always interested in court rulings, interested in cases. And then when i got to washington, it was, it became very convenient, actually, to go to law school on side. And i kept saying to myself because while i was, you know, i had a fulltime job at Congressional Quarterly and the Washington Post. And i had a baby in the middle of it. And i always thought, you know, this is getting kind of hard, and i kept giving myself permission not to finish law school. Okay, its okay, youve got a big job. You dont need to finish. But i did. You know, i finished, and i enjoyed it. And, you know, i kind of liked the pace of school, and i like law, and i found that with politics and government its very mutually reinforcing. And i actually know several journalists who either went to law school or aspired to be lawyers at one point. I think journalism and law tend to be quite compatible. Host why . Guest both have to do with words. You know, writing is a big part of law. You know, when you take you write, you have to write lots of essays when youre in law school, and writings, obviously, a big part of journalism. I think it attracts people with the same sort of skill set. And i was reminded of something you said about how you think of the Supreme Court as calculus and something that you kind of are afraid of. Im, i find that its very easy for me to swim in the world of law, humanities, journalism, those kinds of things. Its more science and patent law which has become very important at the Supreme Court that i find, i resist more. I would resist more science and calculus than i would resist the law. And i have a good friend whos very smart on patent law, and i said, oh, but it involves so much science, and he said the trick is not to be afraid of it. Thats what i would say to you about the Supreme Court; dont be afraid of it. Dont think of it as calculus. Think of it as something you can learn about. And ive liked that about the law, and now im trying to get smarter on science and patents. Host 2025583881 if you are out west. If you cant get through on phone lines, try social media, booktv is our twitter handle, facebook. Com booktv if you want to make a comment there and, finally, send an email, booktv cspan. Org. And from our facebook page, dan says what, if anything, can you discern about the three justices youve written from the working relationships theyve had with their law clerks . Guest oh. Oh, gosh. Talk about bonds that are very tight, between a justice and his or her clerks. In fact, Justice Oconnor really liked to fix up her law clerks. Nothing made her happier than a marriage between two clerks. And she called the children of her law clerks her grand clerks. She was very tight with her clerks. And once a Supreme Court law clerk, sort of always a Supreme Court law clerk. As some of your viewers might know, its an incredibly difficult job to get. Each chamber has four clerks, nine chambers, four clerks, 36 and then a couple for the retired jus diss. So justices. So not many people can hold these jobs. They last for just one year, and typically a justice will hire a person who has graduated from law school and then clerked for a lower court judge. And there are certain feeder judges. Judges who are known in the business of being really thinking, intellectual judges who might send clerks their way. So its a very prestigious, limited spot. You have a lot of the young clerks have a lot of face time and interaction with justices. The justices rely on these people to help them with drafts, help them with research. And, again, this is an incredibly insular institution which is why when Justice Sotomayor came on the scene, you know, there were some sparks flying. But she will even herself hire mainly from other Lower Court Judges chambers. Shes not breaking the mold. Clarence thomas tried very hard to hire people who arent just from the ivy leagues. He says i want to go from the top student who might have graduated from the university of georgia, i want to go more others. And Justice Byron white was that way too. He liked young beyond the ivy league. So it is youre getting the elite of elite students in all chambers, and i would say including in Justice Sotomayors chambers. She certainly has her own elite markers with princeton and yale. And all of them do now, you know, because were not talking about anybody who attended anymore even north western, and northwesterns a very fine school, but thats where justice John Paul Stevens had gotten his law degree, and he was the last of the nonivies for a while. Host i dont know if you did this on purpose or not, but on breaking in, i noted two significant references to the ivy leagues. Number one that Justice Sotomayor chose an Ivy League School on purpose guest she did. Host and that it has become so exclusive. Guest she, see, this is where i understand how much she appreciates having those markers. Shes not going to lose her puerto rican identity. But, boy, when she had the opportunity to go to princeton or an ivy league undergraduate, she was going to seize it. And then she told me once she had had that experience and realized how important that was just, not just for the learning, but the credential, she was not going to go to a law school that was not in the ivy league. Others might have thought, you know, my degrees from georgetown, i went at night, there are plenty of other people who have been on the Supreme Court at different times who had perfectly fine legal credentials without the stamp of the ivy league. But she, even as a young woman in her 20s, was not going to change course once she got to an Ivy League School. And she now add vies young people advises young people, get the best education you can, the best credentialed education you can. Go into hock, do what it takes, get it. Because shes realized how in some of these more elite, snobby worlds that can make a difference. Now, its, it doesnt always matter, certainly. I dont think that i can imagine in the next couple of confirmations that well have somebody that went to a state school. I mean, that would be okay, you know . It would really be okay. But right now theres Something Else going on that seems to place a pretty high value on certain selective schools. Host back to breaking in, the experience of Clarence Thomas at yale, the experienceover Sonia Sotomayor guest right, right. Clarence thomas wrote in his own memoir called my grandfathers son, about how painful it was, how he felt like he didnt get a very good education, that everyone there at the time and then afterward thought that he got in only because of affirmative action and he wrote i use some of his passages from his memory in memoir in this book about how he felt as if he was really mistreated by people who thought they were doing him some good by taking him under certain conditions and also signaling to others that maybe you might not be as credentialed as white students who had graduated from yale. I hi it was a pretty painful i think it was a pretty painful experience. I do know that he has gotten over a certain degree of it enough that he has gone back to yale now. For a long time, he would not go back to yale x. In october, mid october or maybe its october 25th a reunion weekend for the yale law school, justices sotomayor, alito and Clarence Thomas will all be together at yale. And all three had very different experiences, the most notable would be Clarence Thomas who at the time really felt like the school had let him down in some way. Host Joan Biskupic is our guest. Mike in kingston, North Carolina, thanks for holding, youre on the air. Caller thank you for taking my call. Ive got a threepronged dialogue here. First of all, i definitely side, i read online that 73 of the public 71 of the public feels there should be term limits for the Supreme Court as well as the congress, and i agree. Theyre totally political, especially in the last years and totally reflect the background of those who aspire or get elected to the courts. So i think there should be term limits. And then my second, second prong is i think theres no youre making, and i think the news media has been the biggest purporters of this and this is my opinion there is no such thing as samesex marriage no more than you can marry two bolts to two nuts. Theres no such thing as abortion rights no more than anybody has right to take another persons right that made it outside the womb. And my last comment and thank you for accepting is i think that, and this is, hopefully, a constructive criticism, i think that both on washington journal and here you spend way too much time just talking, talking, talking instead of getting the social media or the telephone calls. Just like the visit to the authors house. Nothing wrong with that, but i think a lot of people would buy the book which i recommend and read it instead of spending so much time on glorifying the people that you have on there. And i thank you for taking my call. Host thank you, sir. Any comment for that caller, Joan Biskupic . Guest well, i liked it. I liked, especially, the part that hes still going to buy the book. [laughter] so thats good. Thats great. And he raises ill go right to the touchier ones. Look, samesex marriage the phrase were going to use because theyre two people of the same sex. You know, some people call it gay marriage, you know, people use all different phrases. And the polls are showing that the American Public has come to accept that more than before, but i am mindful of the fact that right now only 19 states and the District Of Columbia actually allow gay men and lesbians to get married. You know, 31 states its still illegal. The its a very real issue out there, and even though i am one of the people who actually thinks the Supreme Court is about to take that up, theres a chance they might not. They might feel like the country is not ready for them to take it up yet. So i think its always good the hear from people who dont like the trend as its going, because its a bit of a reality check sometimes on the east coast. But its also, its something that were constantly monitoring. We are constantly polling on this. And theres not a story that i write on samesex marriage that i dont mention that it varies out will in terms of public support. But i think there is no denying that public support has really, taken off for allowing it. And whether the justices will declare that there is a constitutional right to marry, well know in the next couple months. Host roger, decatur, georgia, hello. Caller hi. Joan, thank you so much for remembering father dryman. Guest oh, yeah. Yes. Caller early on in the show you said but this is washington. And washington is really social, okay . So id like to know with whom the justices socialize. And ill do the easy ones, leave you the hard ones. We know Ruth Bader Ginsburgs a culture vulture, and we hear that Justice Breyer hangs out in georgetown which for me means sally quinn, and we know that Justice Thomas likes nascar, but his wifes well connected, and, you know, john roberts is definitely well connected. So when they go out, who do they go out with, who do they hang with, who do they listen to . Host roger, why is that important to you . Rogers gone. Sorry about that. Guest okay. Well, what i know is limited, of course, because theyre not hanging out with me. [laughter] so i can tell you what i pick up on, and ill start at the top. You know, look, the chief justice of the United States, john roberts, is raising a couple of youngsters, so hes hanging out at, you know, hockey rinks, hanging out at places where his kids will be, but then, but he also, of course, has longtime connections here in washington with people from, you know, the late 80s and 90s who were in the reagan administration, who are part of, as roger would recognize, some of the elite legal club. So hes hanging out with them in some way socially, but hes also someone whos raising two kids, so hes got that on his plate. Justice sotomayor lives in a really neat, up and coming area or its not up and coming, its already come area of washington, d. C. , and elena kagan, and they both bought in this region. And so theyre doing, theyre going out to restaurants with their pals, theyre mixing with folks who they knew at earlier points in their life. Elena kagan has been in washington a long time, and she was, you know, back and forth between here and up at harvard and the town of chicago. But theyre all hanging out with friends from past experiences and here in washington. When you, when theyre according to the court, theyre usually older in life. Justice kagan was reported at roughly age 50, but she was a youngster and still is the youngest member of the court. She was born in 1960. But the others are older, so their social groups are established, and thats a little bit about what rogers getting at, is that theyre not branching out to that many new people. Theyre sort of is sticking with the folks they know. So he likes to, and he likes to travel. Out west and down south so they all have their different pals. Im trying to think of anything notable for roger to say about any of these justices that he might not know. Host do they pal around together . Besides scalia and ginsberg . Guest Justice Sandra oconnor was social glue. That after oral arguments they all eat together at lunch. Justice souter said, i dont want to eat lunch with you people. I want to eat my apple and yogurt. She would say, david, now you eat with us. She was saying it is important to shake hand and touch people and get connected. Constantly organizing field trips for the clerks and field trips for the fellow justice. I would say that there is not that kind of person on the court right now and they do things together. Justice kagan goes overseas with the other justices. The newest justice. They do social things and celebrate each others birthday with a little wine conference. So there you have it. Host in fact in your book on Sandra Day Oconnor you write that one of her conditions did not get circulated on time. This is the reason why. Apparently her tennis game with First Lady Barbara Bush this morning and luncheon appointment precluded her final precirculation review. Next call comes from joseph in pittsburgh. Joseph, youre on booktv on cspan2. Joseph, are you with us . Caller according to the Supreme Court, to be appointed, according to the constitution to be appointed to the Supreme Court you simply have to be law knowledgeable in law, not necessarily an attorney. Can we foresee down the road person who is not an attorney being appointed to the court . And one other thing . I think the red mast is in dedication to st. Thomas moore. Thanks for taking my call. Host thank you, sir. Guest right. St. Thomas moore. David hero for Justice Scalia. Thanks for filling that in. The loop on the quote, those were not my words about Justice Oconnor, those were a clerk, right . Host i think justic blackmon who wrote that. Guest i know it wasnt me. I want to make sure you let viewers know. Host it was from a clerk. Guest someone critizing her social calendar. Guest thank you to the calendar. The red mass was thomas moore. Host nonlawyers on the court . Guest not in my lifetime. Not in your lifetime. I cant remember the last nonlawyer. I is absolutely right, you dont need to have a law degree to be on the Supreme Court. Host not boeing to happen . Guest first of all, law degrees are a dime a dozen. You could have experience with the law degree. That is what all the other justices of the past did have. Early warren had a law degree and was a governor. So you had very, a lot of variation with the law degree and traditional legal experience. I would endorse what the scholar is saying trying to broaden the experience but just not talk about, to not have a law degree in this day and age would be hard to get up to speed. It is very hartford new justices to get up to speed anyway because of the way cycle of the court and all that. Host tr tweets, in to you, Joan Biskupic, would you comment on the courts relationship with congress . Guest okay. Host why the hesitation . Guest it varies. It varies among justice. Take somebody like Antonin Scalia. That is the branch he didnt work in. He works in the executive president and third branch the judiciary. He never really liked the messiness of congress and how laws get made. Justice Stephen Breyer worked for Teddy Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary committee. He helped write the legislation for the sentencing commission. He helped write the legislation that deregulated airlines. Justice breyer gets and appreciates the congressional process. So individual justices have different relationships with Congress Just in terms of understanding and appreciating the work of congress. Isnt it funny to appreciate the work of congress . When we think of how polarized it has been in recent years. They are different that way. Elena kagan worked for senator joseph biden when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee when Justice Ginsburg was being reviewed. Interesting how the court reads the work of congress and understands in interpreting the law. The majority of justices do look at legislative history and do try to understand what congress wanted to achieve in a law. Justice scalia is against that. Justice sklar leah says, look at the black and white letter reading of law and what penalties are with regard to that law. At different times depending on the issue and there is tension among the branches and in some ways that can be very healthy because theyre supposed to be checks on each other. I think for the machinery to run smoothly, there should be understanding of the constraints each of the branches are up against. Host is the Supreme Court a supplicant of congress . Guest Supreme Court has nothing but its ruling. It doesnt have money. It cant enforce its rulings. It doesnt have the power of the purse certainly. It doesnt have the power of the sword. It doesnt have, it has only its own institutional authority. The justices can be nervous and timid how they might appear, im talking all ideas. They dont want to compromise the integrity of the court because it doesnt really have power. Doesnt have enforcement power. It doesnt have money at all. If people follow the rulings, people have to believe in it. That is what it has. Early warren, i never covered him. We have a person in our ranks that did cover the warren court. Didnt coffer earl warren and mainly covered rehnquist area and covered chief Justice John Roberts, all those men took seriously the concern about engendering high public regard. They care about public opinion. They try not to show it in their rulings. They try not to show it in the public speeches but they want the public to believe in the institution. Host but they have to come to congress for money. Guest in a way that is very minimal. Congress does oversee the courts budget, the federal judiciarys budget through the commerce Justice States of committee but it is in a minimal way and they cant have, they, congress has only limited way to cut back its jurisdiction and only limited way to effect its salary. So no, not at all. Host deb business, al about kerr key. Hi. Caller hi, joan, i dont know if you are able to answer the question but im always waiting to talk to somebody about the Supreme Court. Section 2, article iii of the constitution says congress is going to decide how the Supreme Court is set up. Jefferson really had a problem, i think it was John Marshall in the early 1800s, the Supreme Court should not be the final tribunal of all laws made and enacted by congress and signed by the president. He waited until after jefferson died of course and turned around made them the final say on everything. When the constitution doesnt say that much. So it makes, it was supposed to have a three equal branches. If everything the Supreme Court can overturn anything, you say they have no power, they have power because they can turn around and mold the constitution into anything they see fit. Basically we dont have a democracy. We have an oligarchy, nine people who werent elected sitting there for life. I dont care if theyre there for life but they were the weakest part of the three branches. Now all of sudden, nobody ever questions what they did, because the first couple of decades of our republic starting, nobody ever thought that Supreme Court would turn around overrule any kind of law that was already passed. I was just curious on your going back into host got the point. Guest actually she raises, what she just raised, referring to marbury versus madison, 1803, when chief justice John Marshall wrote, the majority wrote, the court wrote, that the Supreme Court is the final ash bitter of what the law says arbiter. That is a very big deal that has endured until today and that is what is the Supreme Court gives the Supreme Court its authority to say whats in the constitution. Now just, to mention to the caller, federal statutes, congress can always go back and rewrite the statute. Take as real lot to rewrite the constitution as we know. So what she is referring to is the fact that yes, in terms of what the constitution says, the Supreme Court does have the last word and it was the doing of John Marshall era and at the Supreme Court, the most prominent piece of sculpture is John Marshall seated, beautiful bronze piece, right in the, on the ground floor level that chief Justice John Roberts used to touch the toe of before he went to argue. It is quite a statement there because the statement that chief justice John Marshall brought to the law. Host from your Sandra Day Oconnor book, from former chief justice Warren Burger, the truth was his personal style rival. He used baste and technique to control the opinion writing assignment. Berger would wave his term to speak first in the justices conference and vote with the side that would have majority would give him as Senior Member of thatside the power to assign the opinion of the case. That was him he did that. Yeah. It is nice you brought that up because, there have been personal differences among these justices at other points. When he was on the court, Warren Burger, Antonin Scalia was on the court, what he left in 86, succession, rehnquist becomes chief and scalia comes on in his seat. So weve had some unusual personalities, tricky personalities throughout history and Warren Burger came from the d. C. Circuit that i referred to earlier. Became chief justice i believe it was 1969 and he had he had a very strong personality but his colleagues got wise to some of his techniques and, you know, they would watch out for each other. But since then the word on chief Justice Rehnquist and chief Justice John Roberts there isnt games playing of that kind of nature. There is an awful lot of power in the authority to assign opinions, because, you can, the chief can decide, you know, how wide or narrow it might go depending who is he giving the opinion to. So that is quite a good deal of power and maybe it can, it could be abused in other ways but in terms of fairness, im not hearing at all those kind of comments about either late chief rehnquist or the current chief john roberts that were circulate ad lot with Warren Burger. Host pat riley emails in to you, Joan Biskupic, astute legal scholars using abilities to promote adendas of their political party, how to explain so many 54. Guest she probably did that with a little bit of irony. You look, two things when you look at justices rulings. You take a bit of the word that is in it. But you also realize there are a lot of factors at play and politics is one of them. I mean i would be the first to say, i wouldnt ever go as far as asker erwin who we referred to in earlier part of the discussion. I try to guard against cynicism in some of the things i see but i think her suggestion is exactly right. That politics can enter the mix. Ideology can 10er the mix. Sometimes personal experience enters the mix. Lots of things enter the mix. I think that some of the justices would deny that anything does and other justices would say, of course, were all human but were trying to take the most neutral and partial route that is based on precedent here. Host our next email comes from robert in las vegas. He puts up a warning. Guest okay. Host loaded question below. Guest can we end it here . Host do you think the Supreme Court will select another president . Guest you know, robert in las vegas, those were great times to be a Supreme Court reporter for bush v. Gore. I dont know how it great it was for the country. Those were 30 some days, heady and exciting. No. I think that happens only once ever century 1 2 or so. So it is not going to happen in his lifetime or mine or probably anybody connected with this program right now. Host i think he is going through the political motivation question we saw earlier and pat riley email. Guest here is the interesting thing about that, the 44 54 rulings, it was divided politically in terms of 54, you know who was on the majority . Sandra day oconnor. A lot of people forget that. Sandra day oconnor, voted with majority to cut off recounts in florida, thereby assuring george w. Bush got into white house over al gore, the then vice president. So it was a big moment a huge moment, very politicallycharged moment and when five justice who generally had not really favored, you know the federal government overstates, essentially stopped action in a state. And four justices who come from the opposite side, went sort of in a different direction themselves. I think that theres lots of complaint about the ruling in many ways. For Justice Oconnor, who became my first subject, i think she was quite chastened by the public outcry after that and i felt that that also added a bit to some of the moderation we saw in her later years. Host there was another decision in that case, a 72 decision, in the bush v. Gore. What was that and how is that related . Was that a more significant case . Guest no, no. What youre, okay. If im remembering the exactly right i think we get bush v. Gore on december 12th, two. What im remembering. There were two parts to it. The main parts, can recounts continue in florida . Should the florida Supreme Court additional louing the recounts to continue stand, or, is the nation up against a couple of different deadlines, one involving the Electoral College, does that mean the recounts have to stop . There was an Electoral College issue but there was also a due process and equal protection issue. And the question was, are the standards that are being used in florida fair . The standards for recounting . Remember hanging chads . We all remember that. Most people, most of your viewers will. The way these ballots are being counted, is it being done fairly . And are the standards in place . It was a part of, the Supreme Court the key part of that bush v. Gore opinion was 54 to stop the recounts and to reverse the florida Supreme Court. But there was another element that was in the mix and it wasnt really a hard vote. It wasnt a hard and fast 72 vote but seven of the justices did question the standards that being used to count these ballots and it was a couple of liberals that swung over, breyer and souter if im remembering right. There were problems with how these ballots were being counted but they thought that the Florida Court should set some standards. They didnt want to cut them all off. So, peter is that what youre remembering . What happened then, and i remember this, it goes how does a journalist cover these things. Former secretary of state baker, if im remembering right, went on the air and said, oh, but there was also the 72 ruling. Even some of the liberal justices believed that the standards arent right in florida. Forgive me if im forgetting that evening. It came at 10 00, 10 00 on that night and you know, we were all a little crazy but at least we got it right, about what they did. But i remember that there was some question about what is the 72 business . But 72 business was not a vote in terms of who should really win or lose. It was more of an issue having to do with are the standards in place . This is the most important part with counting ballots. Are there certain standards for, how we regard a hanging chad . Count it as in, count it as out . Does that person vote count for al gore, count for george w. Bush, count for pat buchanan on some of these ballots at time. That is what you might be remembering and it actually played a little bit into the mix. I got a lot of calls from editors saying, but many of the republicans are asserting the court ruling wasnt really 5had, it was really 72. No the basic important ruling everybody should remember was 54. Host kate, sacramento, good afternoon. Caller , good afternoon. Thank you so much for taking my call. I really enjoy the show. Joan, ive enjoyed your reporting over the years. To me the most fascinating justice on the court is Justice Ginsburg, for many reasons but primarily recently seeming evolution from a lowkey judicial incrementalist to more visible abject for the liberal wing of the court. Case in point the hobby lobby dissent. Were you surprised by that dissent . Do you have any plans for a biography of Justice Ginsburg. Thank you again for your time. Host thank you. Justice ginsburg is fascinating. She was born in 1933. She came of age just as Justice Oconnor did but instead of trying to sort of beat men at their own game, as Justice Oconnor did, Justice Ginsburg tried to change the rules and she did. She argued five or six cases, i think six cases before the u. S. Supreme court, winning five of them, on behalf of womens rights when she was with the aclu womens rights project. She tried to make changes and she did. So she came up as an advocate. Then she become as professor at rutgers and, eventually at columbia i believe and then she becomes a judge on the u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit. That is when she first gets to know Justice Scalia as a pal. She is appointed in 1993 by bill clinton. Now she comes on and, very cautious jurist in many ways. But what happens and what the caller is referring to is kind of her more demonstrative liberalism emerges as she becomes more vocal as the Senior Member of the liberal wing. When justice John Paul Stevens left the court in 2010, Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the most senior justice. She became power to assign dissenting opinions when the four liberals were on the losing side. The caller refers to the hobby lobby disend which is a quite powerful and earlier the Shelby County Voting Rights case and she said she took months to write and took a lot of pried in. We have seen her much more outspoken as she ever was and her new role as senior liberal on that side of the bench. There are biographies in the works about Justice Ginsburg and they have been in the works a very, very long time and presumably will be published soon. She is really interesting figure who deserves continued national attention. Host Joan Biskupic, your brand new book, breaking in, spent four years on, contract publication, correct . Guest on the side, yeah. Host whats next . Guest what is next. This is kind of timeconsuming too. I always say it is hard to write a book and hard to sell a book. You sell it one book at a time. So im doing this. Then i go to bookstores and talk to the law students and i do this like reuters is having me do this great little twitter chat on monday which is not my genre i have to say. Tweets are not my easiest host hard for you to stick to 140 characters . Guest very hard. I have a colleague you could do one of this thing, do one of 15 so people follow what youre saying. I so i will do that tomorrow or october 6th. Host people want to join in that twitter chat, what is the address . Guest see i should have said that first. Hashtag ask reuters. Between 2 00 and 3 00 on october 6th, monday, between 2 00 and 3 00, that is the hashtag. They even kind of explained how i then reply. So i have to do that for an hour. Peter, my mantra today is talk long for these three hours. And write short tomorrow for my twitter. So im doing that. Lets see where am i . Im going to speak to some people there. Im going to up new york city to a neat event that the new York City Historical Society museum will do on saturday, october 11th i think it is. Then i go to a couple book festivals this time of year. Down in miami and tampa st. Pete. It is fun. When i, when i wrote the oconnor book i wrote to some bookstores. Tough say many of those bookstores in 2005 i visited are gone. Some of them were gone in 2009 when i did the scalia book. Now a lot more are gone. You do a lot of radio and other stuff. When that is all done which actually took a couple weeks, couple months, then i launch into my next project. I do the day job. Host Joan Biskupic, like asking who your favorite kid, who is the most fun to write about . Or the most interesting that . Guest i just love finding out about these peoples lives and their times. Justice oconnor was interesting because she actually was in an era and a part of the country that i didnt have a lot of familiarity with. I didnt know what her ranch world was like. It was fun to go to palo alto to stanfords campus. It was fun to go to the ranch and fun to get to know her brother who showed me all around. And it was a delight to go through all of her legislative files and find things she had done. So she was exciting. She was my first subject, i still have great interest what shes up to. Justice scalia was more difficult, because plainly he was more difficult. But ive always been intrigued by him as manifestation of the true reagan revolution. Justice oconnor was not a manifestation of the reagan revolution even though she was an appointee of Ronald Reagan. So i was interested in the movement that scalia was part of. And how that emerged in america and how liberals have tried to counter it. And with Justice Sotomayor, it is not straight biography, it is more political history but i learned so much about this trajectory of latinos. I always knew, the basics Civil Rights Era that africanamericans inspired but to learn more about the role that latinos played and what was going on in her life at the time was fascinating. And also her role in that. She was not an advocate in, in the mode of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Thurgood Marshall who helped found the naacp Legal Defense fund. She is second generation. She said, im not a flame thrower. I was not one of those people who was out on the front lines of advocacy. She was more of a board member of the puerto rican Legal Defense fund than somebody who was representing it. That was interesting to me. No, i can not directly answer your question who is my favorite. Host claire, youre on with Joan Biskupic. In boynton beach, florida. Caller thanks so much for taking my call. I have two questions about the bush versus gore election. Is it true that james baker brought john roberts down to florida early on during the recount problem, and of course, we know ultimately that john roberts got, was a appointed by president bush not only to the court but as the chief justice . That is my first question. My second question is, is it true that this determination is the only nonprecedent setting determination that the Supreme Court has made in its history . I would appreciate hearing about that. Thank you. Host thank you, maam. Guest thanks. Both really good questions. First of all, yes, john roberts was on the legal team down in florida for the republicans as were hosts of other young republicans at the time. Born in 55. It was 2000. He was into his career. He was pretty active as a republican in Party Politics even though he was in private practice. He had not yet been appointed to the d. C. Circuit. Which i remind the caller, you went on, he was nominateed in 2001 right after president george w. Bush took office and then eventually ended up on that court, the d. C. Ircircuit and then on the Supreme Court in 2005. So yes, he was very much a part of that team but lots of people were part of that team. Miguel estrada was part of that team. He was a nominee to the d. C. Circuit, didnt get on. In my book i suggest if he had gotten on d. C. Circuit and in line for the u. S. Supreme court, maybe Sonia Sotomayor might not be there today. It was such a big deal for the first hispanic. That was a threshold question about john roberts. At the same time, democrats pulled in all their legal heavyweights down in florida too. It was set of stars battling each other and democrats prevailed largely in florida. When we got up here, the republicans prevailed of course. And then her second question host not being, only nonprecedentsetting ruling. Guest she is reminding everyone of. It could be precedent but not cited by them. The joke, it was a train ticket for one ride only. Yeah, right, no, no. You do not see a lot of references to bush v. Gore in Supreme Court opinions. In fact i think maybe weve had one or maybe, you know, just, it is not cited. They basically rude and then that was that. Host weve talked a little bit about past connections. That caller brought upjohn roberts. Guest yes, yes. Host from american original you right this, the 14page opinion shepherded by scalia, said nixon app sons recordings and white house documents were his personal property. Guest what youre talking about there, that is not a court opinion. That was opinion head of office of Legal Counsel. Host goes back to ken starr and guest going way before ken starr on that. Were in 74. U. S. V. Nixon. Were in, lets see. Watergate is in june of 72. Nixon resigns in august of 74. Shortly before he resigned there was big question who owns the president ial materials, tapes and papers and all that. In the early 70s, who is just dying to be part of the Nixon Administration but Antonin Scalia. He gets hired. He is in the office of Legal Counsel and he is, he comes in trying to remember exactly the timing. But its, he writes, he is working in the Ford Administration which of course gerald ford was nixons vice president. He takes over in august of 1974. Cant remember the exact date that scalia comes into the office of Legal Counsel. That is very important part of the Justice Department. He was assistant attorney general for that division. And he is asked, by president ford and his people, what constitutional, constitutionally who owns these papers . What has the tradition been . Justice scalia writes an opinion as a lawyer in the Justice Department saying that the papers belong to president nixon or any president and congress, congress nixed that pretty quickly. Then of course we also, through court rulings, congressional action and all sorts of other wonderful measures helped public and reporters understand what went on during watergate, all the tapes and papers are now available. The tapes are wonderful thing for any of your viewers to listen to at the national archives. They were a blast for me to go through, in part because, as watergate is happening, as it is really coming to a head, president nixon is also choosing the successors to hugo black and to john harlan in lewis powell and rehnquist. All of his conversations about those choices are on the socalled watergate tapes. So you can find out about what went on behind the scenes with watergate and what you dont know from movies already. Through actually listening to nixon on these tapes talk about things. Youre right, Justice Scalia was with the executive branch during all that. And he rooted for nixon till the very end. Host strategically speaking, this is an email, from bishop, why do you think Justice Ginsburg is not retiring to allow president obama a chance to nominate another justice, when in her advanced age she might not have that much more time left . Closer her departure comes toward the end of president obamas term, the less likely an appointee by president obama will be confirmed . Guest caller, emailer is exactly right. If something were to happen to her or anyone else over the next couple of months, till, the end of president obamas tenure, i question who he could get through, seriously. I think that he would, if, you know, she is is 80, born in 33. She is 81. But Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia are both 78. So it is not like, you know there is chance they might, theyre definitely not thinking about retirement but you definitely dont know what could happen. If president obama got a chance, it would be very difficult to put through anybody who was truly a liberal. Already difficult to put through anybody who is truly a liberal. Her feeling is, i will leave the political scene to somebody else. I feel like im strong. I feel like im not slipping. Only thing that matters to me can i do my job. And she saw John Paul Stevens last until he was 90. Its a big deal among liberals. Erwin chem merry ski who has come up, saying she should strep down. Maybe breyer should step down because of what is at stake for the court and liberal legacy. Host court land, lakeland, florida, youre on booktv with Joan Biskupic. Caller good evening, greetings to you both. My question, it is not a question but i think we grapple with issues of state versus church because of roe versus wade. Roe versus wade established strongly the state be separated from the church. Church opinion says this shouldnt happen where state is rule of the people. So we still grapple with. That i think also the separation of powers, checks and balance, i think we still grapple with that. My question, how far have we come from the separation of Church Versus state . We still need church for the issues of morality to establish and balance that, we dont want the state, the rule of people who override the personal lives of people. How far have we come from that . Host thank you, sir. Guest its a very tricky line. When we talk about 54 decisions and their value and controversies that lead to them, this is an area of the law that generates a lot of 54 decisions. The caller seems to know what has been happening at court with various cases. Remind others from the last term, from the town of greece, which the issue was legislative prayer and how inclusive, did the city council need to be who got to say the prayer. The idea of potentially only christian voices at this, at these City Council Meetings and by 54, the justices essentially gave, city councilses local governments, for allowing prayer to open the council meetings. That was 54 decision by roman catholics, and opposed by more liberal justices, three jewish members and one roman catholic. Notes how divisive it can be and plays to a lot of religious divisions in america. Its a tough line for how much, goes to the balance between everyones free exercise of religion in the face of the constitutional mandate that government shall not establish religion. And those two clauses can work compatibly but often seem intentioned at the Supreme Court. Host in an american original, this is from the last page, the Supreme Court is likely never to go as far as scalia wants on racial policies and in an equally explosive area of the law, he will likely never see the overturning of row v. Wade. Kennedy would block that. Scalia is likely to continue on the losing side of gay rights, courtesy of kennedy. Yet in upcoming years, scalia could help bring about more mingling of church and state and Less Government regulation of campaign financing, et cetera. This is book came out this 2009. Guest somehow it still stand up. So, thats true. Host greg in ohio, youre on with Joan Biskupic. Caller good afternoon. My question is in terms of political rivals, can you give examples of appointees to the Supreme Court that were potential political rivals and were appointed to, to kind of get them out of the way . Second part, have there been any justices that have been impeached over the years . Guest okay. The first one, we had, in some ways, there was, a question of whether president eisenhower put earl warren on the court to get rid of a potential rival. So, that has happened. For our current crew, i have to say i cant imagine a president thinking i better elevate the lower court judge to put them on. The caller is wisely thinking of different era when we had more politicians on the court. A president would think about a potential political foe to maybe, someone over at the Supreme Court. It has not happened at all, really in our time. When president clinton was thinking about big public figure in mario cuomo or Bruce Babbitt or George Mitchell, he was not thinking of getting rid of a political rival here. That just reminded me of something that, that, comes up with Bruce Babbitt, who i invoked because of bill clinton here and Sandra Day Oconnor. It was Bruce Babbitt, who as Arizona Governor in the, that would get us back to the 70s, yeah, in the 70s, who actually named Sandra Day Oconnor to the intermediate court she got on. I think im remembering this right. There was a little talk about whether Bruce Babbitt was trying to remove a political rival in Sandra Day Oconnor. Remember, she had a fabulous political background and she was quite a politician, very effective in the state. And, just you know, as i said, just coming to mind now. I could have a couple of the details wrong. But i refer that was a little bit of the flavor of it. In terms of any justice impeached in recent history, no. Samuel chase back in the 1800s. I cant even think, we had a couple Lower Court Judges impeached since the 90s. Alcee hastings i believe. And walter nixon. Does that sound right . I think i got that right. Host Alcee Hastings is a member of congress today. Guest i know. Host do you have a favorite Supreme Court justice from the past . Guest not really. One tour on the bench i find so much more interesting in ways, but i have, you know, i am a student of history too, but i dont, word favorite doesnt quite work. Favorite case doesnt work either. There are cases that, people always say, you know, what case did you love to cover . In some ways bush v. Gore was a great case to cover. There were flaws and many ways to it, depending where you sit but it was a great case to cover, just like affirmative action case was a great case to cover. There has been, the word favorite doesnt seem to, seem to work. I mean theyre all, theyre all somehow, i find, lots of cases and lots of justices interesting. Host rebecca, woodland hills, california. Caller hello . Guest hi. Caller i have two questions. First of all in regard to the hobby lobby case, that basically gives employers the authority to control female employees access to birth control, do you think that is makes this court one of the most regressive on womens rights in decades . Because i know Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said so, i agree with her. I was very much against the hobby lobby decision. My egg second question, is in regard to the Voting Rights act, recently struck down under the argument race system is not really a that racism is not really a problem and i clearly think it is a problem. Do you think that they ruled badly on that case, striking down parts of the Voting Rights act . Host rebecca, how closely do you follow the Supreme Court . Caller i try to follow it fairly closely. Host why . Caller i personally went to law school. Im a Political Science major that im interested in. Im very interested in the subject. Im very liberal that i find that the courts, too conservatively kind ever chuckles me. Host thank you, maam. Guest both very goods points. Who would have thought in 2014 we would be thinking of deeper, deeper gender divisions on the court and in america. A couple actions by the Supreme Court toward the end of the term, revealed. The bench split along those lines to some degree. Rebecca was talking about the hobby lobby ruling. It involved closelyheld companies. But essentially could involve any kind of corporation. If the, owners have religious views that would religious beliefs wouldnt allow certain contraceptives, they have the right to say we dont want those contraceptives as part of our Health Insurance plan. The court found that was required under a 1993, was that was i think religious freedom restoration act. 1990s religious freedom law. Justices said that these companies, hobby lobby and con con that stowing ga wood, it was very disturbing to Justice Ginsburg and other dissenters, there was a male, even among the dissenters. I thought her opinion raised a lot of issues from the 70s and 08s about womens rights and womens economic rights, the kind of rights that rebecca was implying in her question that women had come to depend on an array of contraceptive methods to be active players in society, for their own economic control in this world. And Justice Ginsburg was saying that the court was going backwards on that. And i think this is not the end of the issue, this issue at all. Were going to have other, other questions coming to the court involving the contraceptive mandates of the obamacare law, and, rebecca is probably aware of this since she covers the court, i want to mention a pretty interesting case that will be heard later this fall on the pregnancy discrimination act. It has to do with employers rights to restrict when pregnant women are able to work on the job, that you would think would have been answered before and you know, just because those kind of issues have been percolating out there for a long time. It is very important case and important to employers. It has to do with, a ups carrier, United Parcel service hauler and how heavy the packages were when she had to carry when she was pregnant and what kind of accommodation could be made. These questions reemerge and i wouldnt have predicted so many sex discrimination questions would be reemerging at this time but they are. Host Joan Biskupic, if anyone reads your biographies of the Supreme Court justices would they come away saying wow, she was complimentary . Guest to the justices . Host yeah. Guest i know what people will say. Ive gotten ranges of opinion. I dont think anybody thinks im hard on a you got to deal with the extremes in anything. Weve talked this polarized court. I have at least two figures who are quite polarizing. So on the scalia one, on scalia one, all my pals on the hard left, says you have one bullet, cant you use it effectively . Why do you have to be so evenhanded. On the sotomayor one, early reviews used word admiring. As journalist, you arent happy with the word admiring. People think i appreciate your differences. Some people think that maybe the lens through which she should be seen should be much more heavily ethnic and race rather than political and cultural, which is the way i go at this one. So, just like rulings that, it tends to be in the eye of the beholder, what i have to say, i think most readers, in the criticism, you know, usually quite positive, is that, people see me as being evenhanded towards my subjects. I hope that continues. Host in the sotomayor book, breaking in, you quote jeffrey rosen, head of the National Constitution center in fill deferral. You said rosen said the most consistent concern, this goes way back, that sotomayor, although an able lawyer was not that smart and kind after bully on the bench . Guest she still gets that. She still gets it. She knows she get it and still counters it. I felt it was important to take that on and reveal it and not run from it and not to ignore that criticism. That endures today and she will, when she is out giving public speeches try to counter herself. She said, after she was approved by the senate. To then to the confirmation process. It was very painful for her to hear those kinds of comments and, to have it suggested, in other quarters. Jeff rosen did not suggest, this as other people might have, you know that she wasnt up to the job and but she said it was suggested, it was suggested by others. She said that was very painful for her. Why do you think that even was, that people said that . Do you think it had to do with anything other than the fact that i was hispanic . What i try to do in the book to raise it. Look this is what this woman is still dealing with. This is what people say. And this is how she counters it. This is how she has been effective or not been effective. Host you get angry, dont live angry, a quote from breaking in. Host. Guest yeah. Host maria, san pedro, california. Caller im a hard lefty from california but i admire many things about Justice Oconnor. I cant say that i dont. But i want to know, possibly, she will never say she regretted her vote in gore v. Bush. But i believe she says she wishes the court had never taken this up. Could you speak about that . Please . Caller of course. I really appreciate, i appreciate though you can identify yourself as hard lefty, youre open to and interested in this conservative centrist, oconnor. Those are the kind of readers i really appreciate. People who can look broadly at, how these justices have emerged over time. Youre absolutely right. What Justice Oconnor said, she wishes the court never had to at thattake it up. I think she was shocked by the public fallout. She is the kind of person, who, as i said, once she make as decision whether it be personal or in the law, basically says that is my position. Im moving on. I will not secondguess myself. So she is not secondguessing herself on bush v. Gore. Darn if she could replay that election and wished it hadnt been that close and ended up in her left. Host greg, at bam, a few minutes left with Joan Biskupic. Caller thanks for taking my call. Im actually conservative to some degree but interested in the dynamics that Justice Sotomayor brings to the court in regards to the deference that existed there for so long. Justice kaig began talk kagan with reference dealing with people and she can be fiery at some times. I wonder how different Justice Sotomayor is with regards to her actions on the court and how she deals with the more conservative justices . Thank you. Guest that is good question. Im glad to have opportunity to talk about how her personal style might play in rulings. And, bottom line on joes tis sotomayor she is really a product of structure herself. Structure informs precedent. She was on the federal bench for 17 years before she became a Supreme Court justice. So she is, she even says, she said to me, you know, im not aable rouser. She is trying to do things on the Supreme Court in lawyerly, judicial way. She is not, she might be shaking up the place in a personal way and she might be out there on the stump with her own memoir and all her speeches in a way so different than from what other justices have done but she is, when it comes to the law, she is looking at precedent first. She is trying to deal with her colleagues through the usual channels. I have a couple incidents in the book that found out from behind the scenes that show her making more waves than we would have known. But even, even what we know from her public, public statements she is interested in process. And where she is breaking off from the majority, even breaking, broken off from her liberal colleagues is to bring more process to criminal defendants appeals. So, its, i wouldnt even put her in the mold of Thurgood Marshall. She is not that kind of advocate. She is not a first generation advocate but she is doing Something Different given her background. Just she still first and foremost a judge. Host how would you describe john roberts . Guest a lot of different ways. He is definitely interested in tradition. In going through channels. Making sure things look just right. He is actually quite, quite a public speaker. He is quite a, you should host cspan has covered him several times, whenever we can. Guest great public speaker. Pa great sense of timing. He cuts a very positive public presence from the bench. He used to argue it from the bench. He argued 39 cases. He is a very effective advocate for himself. As i said, he is a pretty buttondown individual. He is just give some folks. Roman catholic. He is from indiana. Child of a father who was, worked for a steel plant. Was an executive. He is one of, i think, three or four children and he was only boy in the family. I think he has two or three sisters. The eldest. Went to harvard for undergrad. Harvard for law school. He is, he is playing a long game. He is a very, very smart. Im always surprised when he says something that seems out of character because i think he really, really can keep it in check. I think that there are some questions about whether he might take some baby steps over to the left. He is definitely not, not the conservative that samuel alito is. Definitely not the conservative that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are. Where he fits into the center, how much more he will align with Anthony Kennedy and how much he will align more middle to the right are very open questions. Host does very, very strong friendships on the courts, relationships . Guest woe make sure those relationships are good. He understands that is part of being chief, is being an administrator and trying to. Trying to make sure his colleagues treated fairly in processes of the court and assignments. I think he put as lot of attention to, to his, those relationships. A few years ago in indiana, i know youre a native, i covered a 7th circuit legal conference and he was the opening act for elena kagan. She was going to be speaking. And he gave some remarks. And now she is very liberal and he, he was great. He was only favorable. He had his usual sense of timing. She gets up and she says, im supposed to follow that . So he, he says the right thing and, i would recommend, people look at some of his rulings in the last term, for signs where he might not be exactly as he has been pigeonholed in, hardright conservative. Look at june 2012 ruling in the obama Health Care Law case. Host jodi, venice, california, we have a minute left. Caller okay, you say the court is insular and almost shy yet a few of justices attend political strategy planning conventions and fundraising events. To me on the outside that looks awful. Host can you name a instance where you know about this. Caller Clarence Thomas and i believe scalia went to a Koch Brothers planning strategy convention in palm springs. Samuel alito was seen at a republican political fundraiser. There is even footage of it. And reporters tried to stop him as he was leaving to talk to him and he just was scooted down the back host any liberal justices attend these type of meetings . Caller honestly not that know of. I dont want this to appear this is partisan question. I just wonder if there is going to be any move in the court to, you know, at least use the same rules for ethics that, are, the District Court judges. Host thank you, maam. Guest this comes from time to time. The justices actually are not supposed to attend fund raisers. That is part of their own internal rules. The caller hit on something having to do with exthicks rules for ethics rules of government. Supreme Court Justices operate on their own rules. They dont follow all the rules lower Court Justices do but effectively follow them. Their their own masters. They dont usually attend fundraisers. They try not to. There are instances conferences where political strategizing going on but it was not part of what they were doing. But that, that kind of controversy comes up through the years and, they, wisely try to avoid sending those signals because again, what i said was, that all they have got is their integrity. If people doubt their integrity they will doubt the have lid of those rulings. Host did samuel alito attend a political fundraiser . Guest what she is referring to, might be referring to Federalist Society meetings they have spoken at and fundraising component. The Koch Brothers thing, if i remember right, the caller might have recently looked back to those clips, is that, these justices were not in on any kind of political strategizing. They were offered like keynote speakers forelarger conferences. Host can the justices make outside income . Guest do they make outside income . Their books, their books, okay, Sonia Sotomayor made at least three Million Dollars off of her book. Justice scalia has made, tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands off of all his books that he does in coordination with west publishing which is part of thomson reuters. So maybe im sort of getting rich through scalia . I dont think so. Or scalia is getting rich through thomson reuters. I dont know. They can make unlimited income off of their books. And, many of them are authors. But then they have a certain limit on honoraria they can take for speaking. It is 25,000 roughly. Host Joan Biskupic. Joan biskupic. Com is the website. Biographies on justices scalia, sotomayor and oconnor. Good afternoon. Im a member of