Transcripts For CSPAN2 After Words 20160214

At first, my publisher, editor, and i were thinking should we just call it scalia but we wanted something larger because he is larger. It talks about his italian ba background. And the originalism is him looking back at what they founders wanted in the document and how it should be interpreted today. It was the committee, the title of the original, reflecting him as an original, and a first generation and a proponent of the originalism theory. There is no one like him ever on the Supreme Court. Is that what you thought about . So many people are intrigued by my choice. The first biography i did was Justice Oconnor but for people that dont know the court he is one of the nine, a conservative, and outspoken but why focus on him . He is an original. You know firsthand and have been following him and close to him for decades. He is so distinctive in style but he is distinctive among his career as well. You mention the opera. I think of Justice Scalia as someone who might have been an opera. He is italian, larger than life and when he is in a rom everyone listens to him and talks to him. That is true in the Supreme Court. You have a whole chapter about his oral argument and what it is like to be in the Supreme Court with him. It is funny you hone in on the opera because you can see him almost conducting something. There were times i would go watch him speak and he would stand up and i would start to laugh. He has this show mans movement about him that is opretic and chemical. Thomas said something about the way Justice Scalia composes opinions is sitting down at the computer, putting on Classical Music or opera, and conducts like he is doing a symphony. You didnt think he had four law clerks that write opinions and he signs his name to them. As you know, he relies on his clerks for the research, but his writing style is distinctive so we can hardly be influenced by clerks or have them do his own first draft. Justice steven said i will leave the bench when i stop doing my first draft. Justice scalia is like that and the writing shows i love to pick up an opinion from Justice Scalia whether it be attacks, bankruptcy, or the most obscure topic and he brings it to life. You talk about how he is able to write and not everybody law can be boring. It is not boring when he writes. Is that right . He is very engaged. That is what drew me to him. He is interested in the world at large. He would respond to my questions and ask other questions with different topics and questions asked about him. Tell me about his biography and his upbringing, education and parents. He has an unusual story because hes the only child from this catholic family. His mother came from a family of seven but the only one who bore a child. His father, who came from sicily, was one of two kids and the only one who had an offspring. His father knew no english when he moved here but went to college and got a degree in romance language and went on to be a professor. He set high standards for his son. His mothers side was out there. Everything was a sensation between the parents in terms of where they came from. In his mothers family they always had a piano and to this day he loves to sit down and play the piano. His parents were married 67 years before he came along. He was very much a wanted and doted on child of not just his parents but the aunts and uncles. He went to georgetown, harvard law, and justice of the United States but his mother and father passed away before he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Did he teach law . Yes, he taught mostly at the university of chicago but he had taught a little at Georgetown University but at stanford as well for a full calendar year. He liked it but didnt get into it as much as expected. It was easy to him to leave it. He was really excited about something you enjoyed. He liked being in the executive branch tell us about that. He started in the Nixon Administration and started with a new office created while he was there. The office of telecommunication policy. He was general counsel for that. Then he moved into more of an administrative position where he was in charge of short of ideas to streamline the burr. President nixon nomitanatominan Richard Nixon for the attorney general and was nominated but not appointed until gerald ford. He cut his teeth in the wake of watergate in the Ford Administration in his first assignment as an assistant attorney general was to determine who owned the watergate papers. No easy task. But the opinion was nixon owned those tapes and other documents that the Congress Quickly reversed and that is why the American Public has access. Who did he replace as assistant attorney general . A man named by the name robert dixon. And at the time, a person you are familiar with, Larry Silverman who is a federal Appeals Court judge here in washington, d. C. , mr. Silverman was Deputy Attorney general. Not sure his exact title but his job was to find a new assistance for the office of council and a man by the name john rose this is like your life, too because you know the players. He was a long time aid in the nixon and Ford Administration and he had the idea this fellow an Antonin Scalia might feel comfortable in this crazy postwatergate world. This was a time when a lot of republicans were scrambling to get out. The place was employ imploding. It was a difficult, chaotic time in the administration. They were looking for someone who would not be afraid. They found the nonwimp. Did they every. He came in and cut his teeth in the wake of watergate. Larry silverman said he was never drawn to someone so immediately as he was to now Justice Scalia. They had a good time together. I thought it was interesting william ren quist was assistant attorney general under nixon in the office of Legal Council. Yes, bill had that job but he in january of 1972 is successfully appointed to the Supreme Court. So there is a little gap between when bill rain quest left the job and scalia came in did they know one another . Any relationship . No, they certainly knew each other but it not dealt with each other much. They talked to people like stevens who was nominate d skwu pointed by nixon to the sev circuit all knew each other but did not know each other really. John paul stevens was vetted when he was voted to the Supreme Court and that helped ed leave who became the attorney general. You can imagine this is where Justice Scalia essentially comes of age in the administration. Tell me a little bit about the office of Legal Council. I know a little bit about it he was a professor, then served as the counselor. The job is to be the constitutional lawyer to the president. To see what is constitutional and what is not. Many of our people know of the office because they released the torture memos of what is going on with Guantanamo Bay detainees and other offices going forward. Other than that, it is rarely in the headlines. It is a brainier office and not prominent for the public but prominent among lawyers because it draws someone who is very much interested in the constitution and the intellectual side of the constitution. A small office that produces matters relating to constitutional law and it is the Training Ground for a person like bill ren quest or Antonin Scalia to be on the Supreme Court because you say that office deals with a lot of things that might come from the Supreme Court. As head of the office, he sparred with members of congress and was going up to testify before people like ed musky, people like robert dryman very strong liberals who were skeptical of what the Ford Administration was doing in terms of executive privilege and keeping the documents secret. He loved sparring. Do you think he held his own . I have the transcripts so he did hold his own. But when i talked to him about it he said i could have done it with one hand tied behind my back when as a Justice Scalia think to say he must have left at the end of the Ford Administration and then the Carter Administration came along and then Reagan Administration came along and about 56 years . When was it in the Reagan Administration. President reagan took office in january of 1981 when did they put the finger on Justice Scalia to become an Appeals Court judge . I said he left in 76 but he left in 77 and goes to a conservative think tank and works his way to the university of chicago. He wanted to go into the Reagan Administration sooner than he was able. And this is someone you know, William Prince smith, was on the look out for a solicitor general, that is as you know because you held it, the governments top lawyer before the Supreme Court and office viewed with dignity. And all of men who have done that, and we have the first lady doing it, but it is a brainy and intellectual job before the correspondent. Then professor sckalia wanted that job and thought he would get it. But rex thorn was up for the job as well. And as bill smith writes in his m m m m m memoirs he said it was a close call but i didnt chose scalia. And scalia used the word bitter was he was so close and it was a job that was taylor made. That came in spring of 81. That is when rex lee got the job. Then the Reagan Administration offered Justice Scalia a job on the seventh circuit which is based in chicago. He is living in chicago and doesnt like it. He and his wife were east coast folks and they didnt enjoy their time in chicago that much and wereegwereege were eag get back to the east coast. So we he is being offered a lifetime appoint to the court of appeals and he holds out hoping he will get a job on the appeals side in washington, d. C. The court here handled Administrative Law and he was good at that. He was taking a chance. He had an operative hand versus one that may not come. But in 1982 he is appointed by Ronald Reagan to the u. S. Court of appeals. The washington, d. C. Circuit is considered to be the Second Highest Court in the land and equal with other federal courts but it is in washington and handles cases many which go to the Supreme Court. Right. And some people would say if he had became solicitor general and taken those tough stands he may not have been appointed to the u. S. Supreme court. 82 goes to the washington, d. C. Circuit and when appointed to the Supreme Court . He gets appointed in 1996. And the battle is beating robert borke to the nomination. He was the man on deck for the Supreme Court. He was a strong intellectual force and nine years of Justice Scalia senior. He was on the washington, d. C. Circuit before Justice Scalia. And in some ways i think people believed it was owed to him. He did have a hand saturday massacre in the watergate and enough controversy he was passed up in 1975 when the Ford Administration went for steven. After reagan chose oconnor to be the first woman of the Supreme Court who will he chose next and he chose scalia and i will tell you why. He chose four. But not until 1987 but that made a difference because the senate flipped democratic. He chose scalia in 86 because president reagan was enthralled by the first generation story. He was a conservative but presented a different tale and at the time the administration didnt know if it would get more appointments and Justice Scalia seemed a lot healthier. He was a smoker i remember telling something and they said i didnt know that. The administration goes with Antonin Scalia. He skates through the process. Let me stop there. That vacancy was created when chief Justice Warren burger resigned. And instead of going outside of the Court President reagan selected William Renquist who was an assocate justice to be chief justice and then selected skalia to take the rin quest seat. Didnt they come together at the same time . Yes, and that helped him. He was helped by his italianamerican heritage, and helped by the fact his record for all intensive purposes was in plain site but there was no reason to probe too deep in the how deep his conservative behavior was but he followed him for status and a lot of came out to be elevated to chief and support him. They didnt like his report on the Supreme Court but he was outspoken as an assistant attorney general in the office of Legal Council and he had a record that generated so many more critics. Here is Antonin Scalia who has this wonderful life story. His nine children lineup behind him. I was going to ask you when you mentioned he was an only child he has nine children and how many grandchildren now . 30. But i would have to check. I asked him how he could remember all of the names of my grandchildren and he said what makes you think i remember the name of all grandchildren. He had nine and has 30 grandchildren. Wonderful life story. At the time he was nominated in 86 he had no grandchildren. They lined up behind him, look lovely, and the senators are talking everything is looking wonderful. He is so confidant in his views he only answers what he wants to answers and he himself knows he cannot go down any controversial path and he is giving advice not to say anything. He writes in his own book about how i dont think i could have gotten the serial number out of the guy. He played that committee in so many ways and was voted in unanimously. The vote was 980. We know there has been these contentious votes a couple year back now and you will see Justice Scalia, one of the more controversial justice, and more colorful and flamboyant, 980. If you read the dialogue from the hard line liberals even, howard bomb opens his questioning or probing by saying it is shame you beat me in slash the other day. There was a very good ole boy thing going on. I open in the book with Justice Scalia talking about the first softball questions. And on the yeah, and the federal society and the justice himself puts his arms together and says bring it on. At the end of his hearing he said i have truly enjoyed by myself and i wrote i think he did. I think he did it, too. And an odd ball question was asked about property laws, and bringing uses and shifting and then Justice Scalia without a pause tells this great story about two lawyers in new york about taxi cab access. He hijacks the question and it is like okay we are ought of time later. I asked do you think he knew the real answer to the question and they said who knows, probably not. And with the answer the senator forgot the question. Yeah. Yeah. How does Justice Scalia he is so outgoing in his opinion and sometimes pretty rough, would you say, in the descending opinions or the opinions he writes challenging the views of his colleagues. How does he get along with his colleagues . What is their relationship like . That can be tough stuff. Initially there is a great story about Justice Marshall saying during oral arguments do you think he realizes the rest of us are here . This is a time when the bench is filled with mostly quite justice. We have a socalled hot bench right now where the majority are active and firing questions at the lawyer at the lectrpodium. He comes on and he is aggressive from the bench from the beginning. Tell us so people understand an oral argument in the Supreme Court gets 30 minutes per side, generally, right . What happens . Well, the lawyer for each side stands up and usually starts to present a case and what happens today is that individual justice jump in and ask question and try to make their own points. You can have 90 questions go by in an hour. Very fast paced. In 1986 it was a slower pace and the lawyer presenting was able to present more of his or her case. Justice scalia comes into the this atmosphere and really wants to mix it up much more. He does. He becomes quite a force. It is more appreciated now because we have justice like that but in 76 we had a more laid back group. Then he does a conference explain the conference. I will. I was talking to a former law clerk about what goes on in that. It is only the nine justice. No one else. And they sit around a table. This is after the hear the chase . They meet two times a week. On wednesday to look at the early cases and see how they will preliminary vote and on fridays. They are looking at now just how they will vote but cases they will take. Hundreds of appeals are filled at the Supreme Court and they only take a small handful. They start off with the most senior justices . Right. And it would have been chief justice fill ren quist laying out the facts and going around saying who will vote which way. And justest rehnquist went really fast. Justice scalia would talk out of turn and he would say he will hear from you during our turn. And he wanted to debate. This was his style. He was combative and learned that is not what it is about. He would complain to friends about what this is all about . We are not debating. At that time in the courts history bill brenhan was there and controlling a lot. So the liberals still had a bit of an upper hand that didnt sit well with him. He will talk in a moment or two about some of the opinions. At the end of the conference they vote, right . Someone writes an opinion, tell us that how opinion you are talking about the private conferences the justice have after hearing oral arguments and they are ready to resolve the case. They take a vote. And the majority side is then going to prepare the opinion for the court. And the most senior justice on that side signs the opinion. If it is the chief justice, the chief justice is the seniority, they sign the opinion. And chief Justice Rehnquist often the majority and sometimes william brainer but when rehnquist he would sign it. Justice scalia would sometimes lose the fifth vote because you have to write an opinion that will keep all five justice, the majority of the nine, on it rather than something that reflects your opinion. Maybe the vote would be 54 at conference and chief Justice Rehnquist would say scalia write the opinion for the court and the senior justice in the minority would decide who would write the other opinion . So Justice Scalia would embark on writing an opinion and you are saying maybe because this opinions were so sharp and out there maybe someone would say i dont think we need to go that far and switch around . That happened on occasion how do you know . Does someone tell . Tell me how you know that . That is a secret, isnt it . Not anymore. People do tell and we have the treasuretroves of justices papers. Several justices upon requirement have allowed their papers to become public after retirement and death. I made use of powells papers. They are wonderful papers memos or what . Memos and exchanges on cases and notes between justice. Justice powell, Justice Harry blackmans papers are at the library of congress, Justice Marshalls papers, william brenins papers are mostly p published. So these justices dock documented provided what happened during the drafting process and that is where i was able to detect Justice Scalia loosing the majority. From the outside you would not know that. In fact, i heard from a lawyer who argued one of the cases that was 54 in the opposite direction until Justice Scalia lost the majority and bill brenan switched votes and it went the other way and there was a lawyer on the case that didnt know it happened. You would not know unless you went to look it up. And i think, you know, in the early 1990s when justice th Thurgood Marshalls papers became available people started looking at them. But only law professors and journalist like myself spent a lot of time in the papers. They keep it a secret but after leaving the planet the papers become available. That is right. I had a conversation with Justice Sandra day oconnor what she will make available in papers and she said dont hold your breath. And the justice that just resigned said it will be a while. I know. Some of fellow justices are probably happy because when they send a note they probably want it to be quite but for a journalist it lets you know what going on when you only see the final law of the land. It is nice to see the dynamics that produce it. You are a journalist and historian and doing both in books like this. Tell me about the fact that once in a while justice skalias opinions would be sharply critical of his colleagues. Somewhat disdainful perhaps. And you mention someone pointed out there is sarcasm in there from time to time. Tell us about that. Was that true . Did it alienate his colleagues . It did in some aspects but they came to embrace it. Do it long enough and you will get away with it . Or because he smiles. Ginsberg said one time i love him but i could strangle him. And Justice John Paul stevens who is his opposite on the law certainly, Justice Stevens, the senior liberal on the bench, who said to he has certainly been destructive and what Justice Stevens said about his colleague. But he took it as part of the intellectual debate. Justice Harry Blackman who retired and passed away since was offended by Justice Scalias tone. And i would find in his documents when Justice Scalia first let a descent in a case he wrote doesnt need to be this long and he was very offended by the tone. And Justice Oconnor who retired in january of 2006 was always offended by some of his tone but learned to live it. And they said has he been eff t effective with that tone . What he has done is he probably cost himself a little bit with the moderates on the court but issued battlescries beyond the court and he is a hero to a lot of conservatives out there. So he has been effective in a way other justice havent been effective beyond the bench. I am going to ask you more about his writing but Justice Blackman, you mention Justice Blackman, i thought there was an interesting piece in your book where one term everything went wrong for Justice Scalia and he apparently appeared like he was at the end of the term. They started october with arguments and finish in june. It was june and he had lost one case after the other. I think Justice Blackman was feeling sorry for him. This was interesting. We are in june of 1996 and Justice Scalia has lost, and lost and lost. That is when he says we have gotten to a point this is a country i dont recognize. He had been in the descent significant gay right case and an education case. Getting destroyed every turn. He is very disappointed. At this point, you know, president clinton is in office. The country is in a position where Justice Scalia feels like he is of the minority view. Harry blackman reaches out and says i know you are disappointed but i hope after the summer you will get over it. Justice scalia writes back a personal note acknowledges his disapoinment and says i feel like it has been disappointment through not. And his becomes public when blackmans files are open and Justice Scalia felt insulted. He felt he was being reached out to a colleague, he lets down his guard and writes back, and it all becomes public. He felt a sense of betrayal. But it was great to see how rejected he was at the moment. Do you think he was ready to quit . There was speculation . He was talking to pals over pizza and he would love to drink his wine and east pizza. He just turned 60 which wasnt a big deal we are all looking at milestones. I believe he would have never quit. This was a job he thrives on. But people close to him thought he might. It is ironic someone on the other side of those cases would reach out hand to him, he would respond and then later when Justice Blackmans papers are available he felt a little bit i guess that means we will never see Justice Scalias papers . I would not hold my breath. Justice scalia Justice Blackman chronicled everything but Justice Scalia isnt like that. I want to return to his relationship with justice ginsburg. Some say it would be harder to fine two justice different. He is italian and robust. Justice ginsburg is soft spoken and liberal. Tell us about their friendship, though. Very longstanding friendship. They first met in the 70s. She heard him give a speech but it was an area of Administrative Law close to scalias heart and he gave a speech only a law professor could love. But she was a law professor at the time. She disagreed with everything he said but was taken by his style. He is so amusing and as she told the senators after her conformation hearing what is when you and Justice Scalia and she said he can always make me laugh. She sees him in the late 70s and i think she remembers hearing him give this speech, disagrees on the substance of the speech but was taken by him. And they both end up being appointees to the federal court of appeals in washington. They are both former law professors and exchange writings and are asking for advice own everything from the legal reasoning to puncuation. They are both picky and share a love of opera and a love of travel. Their friendship starts to deep en. And toward the end of his washington, d. C. Circuit in the mid80s they spend new years either together. And bill pork was part of the group and after lots of reasons, one being his disappointment of not getting on the group, but they spend new years eve together with their spouses that get along very well. Everyone is baffled by it. She is irked by things he does but they are friends. He said he values her advice and he will share opinions with her in the drafting process. Her favorite picture is the time they went to india and they are on an elephant together with him in the front and her in the back. And she said there he is robust and she is this skinny thing. But they really enjoy each Others Company to the bafflement of many. The new years eve think i understand Ruth Ginsburg husband is a chef. What does he cook . Sometimes what justice skalia has shacked. He loves to hunt. Here is this new york reared boy who now loves to go down south and go quail or duck hunting, elk hunting, and sometimes he will bring back something Marty Ginsburg can cook up. Nina quills it, and marty cooks it. Right. They have a great new years year and he loves wine and food. Tell me about his writing smi style. I am taken with it. I find it fascinating. What are you found . It is rich with illusion. He will quote everything from shakespeare to the thugs and west side story. He is constantly invoking all sorts of literature, long lyrics. His father, who is a professor of the romance languages, also collected italian lyrics. And the justice himself has been quite musical and he invokes songs in his opinion. They are lively and punchy. As you said, he used the word sarcasm, they can be very sarcastic. He wants to get attention and watts to be read and wants to get his message out. I think what he thinks, and from what i have gathered from your writing and i know myself, he knows if he writes it in a way people want to read it people will remember it and people will be persuaded. Is he having fun or he thinks it is more persuasive . I think he enjoys it. He enjoys having written it. He is energized during the process. But he wants to persuade and loves it when his opinions are devoured and we know many liberals, who even though they would disagree with just about everything he says, turn first to his descents or his writing because it is so engaging. And he likes that. He wants his opinions to make the case back. He wants future toin attorney generals to be reading him. I remember him talking about 60,000 people dancing nude in the hoosiers dome. There is always Something Like that, not always, but often Something Like that that makes his point. He is very visual. I asked Justice Stevens once if you were doing this book what would you want to know about Justice Scalias life . And he said where does he get that sense of story telling . That colorful side from. And i started asking relatives he did, no, he did. But his grandfather on his fathers side was quite the story teller and the first person on new years eve to start banging the pots outside of the townhouse. His father being so interested in words and language as well. He as a first rate use of the language. Justice scalia has been supicious about the press and you talked to him and got him to cooperate with your book. Tell us that story. Well, he was initially a reluctant subject. We have quite a history together. I hold him you liked me once before, didnt when i reported for the washington post, and now i am working for the usa today can we start over . And he said even no we have not holding a grudge but we have had up and downs throughout the years especially when i was with the washington post. When i told them i signed the contract you did that before you knew you would get any help from him. I did. And that is because i knew i knew his story and i could get to people. My first sitdown interview was in 1990 when i was with congressional quarterly. When you are at the court every day you feel you have an access and i was confidant and my publisher and editor were confidant i could tell the story. And he wrote back saying feel free to talk to colleagues, friends, feel free to reach out to my family but i will not talk to you. And i said keep an eopen mind. I spend time in trenton where he was born and went to the ford archives and found out lots he didnt know about his family or story. He ran into each other at a social occasion and i was telling him about things i found in trenton and he got interested. He said you are spending so much time trying to figure out my life maybe i should cut you some slack. He started calling me. And how often am i sitting at the desk . He would call and questions about this fathers story i did research on. Then we started and talking and i said he wanted an advancement of the book. He wanted information. It is interesting. I dont know how much anyone in his family did geneology but i was doing research. We started talking and i was taping it and he said i dont know if that should be on the record and i said we are done that path and this is on the record. I was very frank about my mission. I wasnt trying to hold him up as a hero but just tell his story as thoroughly as possible. It was all on the record. Toward the end when i told him about the chapters on catholicism and race and things from critics that mind be in there i let him have a response and i said this is, you know, you have been good about being generous with your time and the tradeoff is you will know what is in here. I will let you respond to your critics. This is a book that is written for a mainstream audience. You can see you got his respect, admiration and cooperation because he sees you as an honest person. I wanted to mention catholicism. There are six justice on the Supreme Court that are catholics. Nothing like that ever happened in history. What did you learn about the effect and he is a strong catholic. I mean a passionate one. How does that effect and the same question about the other justice. That is a good question. It is historic we have six catholics on the bench. They all have different approaches to their catholicism but Justice Scalia is the best known catholic. His friends say they believe it is the true church, he likes the high mass, and believes people should observe the holy days and say the rosary. The hardest chapter was to write was the one on catholicism and abortion. It as a passion for catholicism. He said he reads text and his views dont come into play. I talk about how important catholocism and i let people counter that and readers take away from it. It is a historic type for catholics on the court and i think he more than anybody else sort of embodies the ideas that cath catholicism can influence the law. He said the fact he is catholic doesnt lead to his opinions on abortion. He supports decisions involving capitol punishment which may be against the catholic ideals. He has a point. I think understand who understand his approach to originalism will say of course in the framers original idea of the constitution you will not find the right to an abortion. He has a good argument on that. But that is certainly not influenced by catholicism he said. The idea that originalism, say a few words about that, and what is the antip of this on the court . Tell us what that means to him and what is he is opposed to on the other side . His idea is going back to the 18th century and look at the drafters in the constitution and what they wanted in the law and what shaped their understand. What is going on in society so it is not just the text but largely the text. The counterpart is liberals talk about how strongly their counterpart is. They definitely dont subscribe to Justice Scalias view. But they want to more vigorously be a player in the intellectual debate on this. But it is hard. I think Justice Steven brier embodied that in his book. You dont go back to the 18th century and stay there but you look at what is important now and how the laws and the text of the constitution have evolved to fit the needs of society. For the viewers that have been around a long time that was embodies injustice william bran. The living evolving constitution to meet the demands of the environment now. Justice brier embodies that but in a different way. Lets be real about what America Needs and look at it in a broader sense than what was happening in the 18th century. What Justice Scalia says if i look at it in terms of the text and what the framers had in mind i will not let my personal views influence me. I will not let my catholicism or anything else come in. And he was told that is hog wash. Your thoughts are coming in and dont fool yourself. It is your judgments that are always going to influence your decisions here. We are just a little bit more honest about it than the originalist. The debate is fascinating. That is a good example because justice brier and Justice Scalia like to go on the road and debate with one another once in a while. If you can get a ticket to one of those debates it is one of the best things you will ever watch. Justice scalia is a conservative and justice brier and so forth is perceived as a liberal. But Justice Scalia is thought of as a sole libertarian and voted to strike down the flag burning statute. Can you comment on that . I dont think the American Civil Liberties unit was with them most of time but was on flag burning. He said come on, i am consistent with what is in the constitution and didnt think laws against flag burning would stand. And he kids he cannot stand s d sandal scruffy people that burn the flag. But the day after the vote his wife came down the stairs whistli whistling you have a grand ole flag. Justice John Paul Stevens is with him on one thing like the right to be confronted by the witnesse witnessess. He made sure key cases dont let evidence be admitted unless the person is there to be cross questioned. A lot of Different Things here. Someone who had quite the influence on the law and would have never been predicted in 1986. But through a chain of political events, Ronald Reagan, bushs appointments. He went from this loud active descenter speaking only to al colites to someone who is the majority and likely to stay in the majority because the justices likely to retire are there liberals. I encourage everyone to read your book. I have four copies and hope to have a lot more