Who was appointed by president george w. Bush and initially donated to replace senator leon connor and while that nomination was pending the supreme justice of the court passed away and proper to his renominated for the rehnquist physician. And that meant there had to be a new nominee for the oconnor position and samuel alito was nominated for that. They essentially right that the court at the same time. I think it may have been a month of overlap and they are owed quite conservative coming out of the reaganbush era, justice departments and then later justices stevens and souter retired and they were replaced by Justice Sotomayor who president obama appointed the first hispanic american on the Supreme Court and then elena kagan who had been president obama solicitor general. Host you recount in the confirmation hearings for both Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan but did so in a slightly different way. Guest during his confirmation hearings chief Justice Roberts prepared Opening Statement really in which he said that the justices should be the umpires in the ballgame just calling balls and strikes. What he meant by that, he was actually explicit about it, he said people dont go to the ballgames to see the umpires. They go to see the players and find out who wins and who loses so the umpires shouldnt be the central focus of attention. But that came across as a statement sort of the about constitutional jurisprudence that all the judges did was sit there and see whether the statute was within the strike zone are outside of the strike zone. And thats suggested that the job of the justice was relatively mechanical. At least that is what the metaphor came across as. When Justice Kagan was questioned she said while yes, i mean you dont want the justices to be the focus. We want the laws to be the focus but when the justices make a decision the law is not always as clear as the ball coming right down to the strike zone and there is always or very frequently some degree of judgment that is involved in determining whether a statute is constitutional or not. Chief Justice Roberts has reportedly said since his confirmation that he might have put the balls and strikes metaphor a little better, to take away the suggestion that it was his job was just to be an objective observer of where the strike zone was. Host in the introduction you quote barack obama who was speaking as a senator explaining why he was voting against the confirmation of john roberts and obama said to paraphrase 95 of cases the laws pretty straightforward. The president of the rules are pretty much in the same place. But in about 5 of cases the critical ingredient comes from outside the law and you identified that critical ingredient as politics. What do you mean by that . Guest i talk about law and politics in the court. The law is pretty straightforward. The politics component is a very complicated land of things. Most of the time when we talk about politics, though we talk about partisan politics. Will will this policy or this decision help the Republican Party or the Democratic Party . That plays some role in what the court does. The justices are chosen by republicans or democrats and they have these either inclinations or feelings but its very rare for them to make a decision purely on the basis of partisan advantage. Whenever i give talks in public and i Say Something like that somebody raises the issue of rich against poor and i say sure , that is one of those cases where partisan politics almost certainly play the central role on both sides. But most of the time politics is a more sort of ideological or philosophical approach. So over the past generations, legal generations, republicans who were thinking about the constitution have developed a way of thinking about things that is different from the way that democrats incorporated about things. And, win these cases that involve politics and in this sense that are before the court, they deploy these ideological structures or philosophical structures to help them think through the problems they are dealing with. Its in that sense that politics , that kind of politics really does play a big part in most of the important decisions. Host at of course at the outset we have the process of choosing someone as a nominee and he said democrats and republicans look for somewhat Different Things in a nominee. With republicans you said reliability is sort of the holy grail. What do you mean by reliability . Guest let me just back up to give a little bit of the framework of the way i approach this. When a Supreme Court vacancy opens up, people talk about the president having an opportunity to leave a legacy and the question is exactly what that legacy is. Part of the legacy is that you are going to appoint someone who is going to be on the court for a very long time well after you are gone and you want that person to be remembered as your legacy on the court. But as a president you also want to create a legacy for your Political Party and so you want to use the nomination as a way of building their partys strength. So, republicans over the past now almost 30 years have approached this problem partly by saying well look our party has been a coalition of economic conservatives and social conservatives. For a variety of reasons we havent accomplished an enormous amount of social conservative agenda. There is a lot of rhetoric and rhetoric is important that as a matter of policy we havent pushed the agenda all that far on the national level. But we have done well on the economic level. What we need to do is to make sure that the social conservators in the program say that they are getting something. What they are getting our reliable judges, judges who will vote for the kinds of things and positions that social conservatives care about. That is the goal for Party Building by republican president s. Of course it also has these longterm effects of the legacy is both for the strength of the party and a court that is going to be conservative over the long run. Host what about democrats . Guest democrats have been much less concerned about constitutional jurisprudence. There are of course some baselines. No democrat democratic president is going to nominate a justice who the president believes with votes to restrict abortion rights and its very unlikely although its a little that they would nominate someone who was deeply skeptical about affirmative action. But that agenda is relatively narrow as well as a little restricted compared to the social conservative agenda. Rather what democratic president s have done is to use the nominations as a Party Building strategy. So, Ruth Bader Ginsburg nominated by president clinton, was a heroin of the womens rights movement. Sonia sotomayor was the first hispanic on the Supreme Court and the nomination occurs at a time when the democrats are increasingly trying to solidify hispanic support for the Democratic Party. Now, this Party Building strategy interacts with a lot of other things. You have to give the person confirmed. You might not want to use a lot of Political Capital in having a big fight over the confirmation. And so Justice Breyer was a safe nomination. Justice hagan doesnt have strong Party Building characteristics except another woman on the Supreme Court but it was clear that she would because confirmed without too much difficulty. Host one of the things you discuss in the book is courts and diversity as far as ethnicity religion geography and additional background. Can you talk a little bit about the ways the court is and isnt divorce and what ramifications that might have for the choice of a new justice . Guest at the moment the court is in this very statistically unusual, historically unique position on a friday of positions. The one that jumps out historically is religious operation there is now not a single protestant on the court. This is literally unprecedented. Now, religious division has become much less significant politicalpolitically in the u. S. Than it used to be but from a Historical Perspective this is is we talk about white anglosaxon protestant. The p is not there at all so that is one reason. The second dimension is how many justices are now for all practical purposes products of the mostly east coast and a smidgen of the west coast. Justice breyer has connections to california but for justices are from new york city. There are times in the past when president s have hesitated about nominating and it happened with new york when there was one justice from new york on the Supreme Court. The president thought hard about whether they should nominate a second new yorker or not terry now there are four and there is certainly this separation of the coasts. The center of the country is not represented in some sense on the court. And then the final item is in terms of academic background. Every justice now on the court has a law degree from one of the top legal law schools. That is also unusual. Obviously those law schools are dominated on the court but no one from northwestern which is where Justice Stevens graduated or some other school. Its quite unusual. What i say in the book on that particular question is, i dont know if its ambivalent. Thats not quite the right word but clearly i have taught at several law schools and its clear that, and i give talks everywhere, its clear that every law school has top students or really really good, and so you could find graduates of other schools that would be competent, more than competent, excellent Supreme Court justices. At the same time one of the things that is happening in the United States is the development of an Academic Merit talk received. Quotas cease to exist at the maine law schools and they dont anymore. And so one of the things that we might be observing and this narrowing of the academic background is actually a triumphed over meritocratic Legal Education system. Host you point out that most of the justices had been judges and they dont i enlarge have a tremendous amount of realworld nittygritty experience practicing law. Do you think it would be helpful to have more justices that have spent more time kind of in the trenches . Guest i personally do but there are different kinds of legal experience that you can have. It would be helpful to have justices who actually engage in a substantial criminal practice. Justices alito and sotomayor did some of that, both of them on the prosecution side. Justice Thurgood Marshall who had a criminal practice on the defense side. I think it would be nice to have someone who had criminal defense kind of experience. There is a range of civil practice experience that would be useful to have. Justice powell was a Major Corporate lawyer for example. The court is now dealing with a large number of intellectual property issues and last year in one of them Justice Scalia issued an opinion in which he said i dont have a clue as to the science that is going on here. Iatas have to express what people are telling me. It would be nice if you have someone had a background in science if youre going to be doing a lot of this. The one real gap historically is that there are not any justices with significant experience in high levels of National Politics if you go back over history Charles Evan Hughes had been secretary of state and a president ial candidate. Earl warren had been governor of california. There were lots of justices who had significant amount of political experience and that used to be thought valuable because lots of the things that the court for two reasons. One, lots of the things the court does involves arranging the political system and it helps to know how the system actually works if you are going to be intervening at some particular point. The second thing is that used to be thought that people with political experience had a kind of personal interact in personal ways that would push courts to compromise and accommodation. I guess to go you have to get along to go along. I used to make a point the loss that the court was experiencing by not having these type of politicians on it and in a draft of the book and the draft was written before the 2012 elections, i listed some potential nominees that included politicians as possible nominees one of whom was, and this has developed and this candidate and potential ted cruz. He had announced for the senate that hadnt been elected and that is sort of symbolic of what current politicians are like. They dont have this accommodating air and so i am less enthusiastic than i used to be about the idea of appointing politicians. I should say i use an example from the republican republican side that the semester mr. On the democratic side. Host if a vacancy were to arise and say with a democratic president you had mentioned some particular groups that are clamoring for representation on the Supreme Court. It asianamericans or maybe another africanamerican justice who would be liberal as opposed to Clarence Thomas who is conservative. What do you think will be some of the cat elation is that going to the next pic . Guest well at the moment it doesnt look as if its likely that president obama will get another nomination so we are talking about whoever it is that is elected in 2016 and that could be a republican or a democrat. Second, it will be the vacancy that is being filled so if a moat is nominating a replacement for Justice Ginsburg to i say i have no information about her intentions to retire. She plans but lets use that as an example. Host she is the oldest at the moment. Guest she is the oldest of the moment. It would be easier for democratic nominee to fill that position because it wont change the valence of lyrical balance on the court. It will replace an older liberal justice with a younger liberal justice and that is significant because of the length of time but its not a big deal. If the nomination is to replace Anthony Kennedy or Justice Scalia who are among i think they are the oldest of the republican nominees, then if it were a democratic nomination that will affect the composition of the court in a dramatic way. So those are just complete contingencies. We dont know when they are going to occur and who the president is going to be and who the new justice will be replacing. Dionne that, from the democratic point of view i think the Party Building strategy that i described will be followed. I think it would be surprising if the nominee were a democratic nominee were not either africanamerican or asianamerican. Host a. K. A. Nominee would be hard to confirm . Guest its too early. Its the next demographic that they will be concerned about but its a little early. That is sort of inside the bench of potential nominees to the Supreme Court is then because sort of training through the lower courts has not yet occurred, again for lyrical timing and reasons, wouldnt be impossible to find a qualified nominee. The other thing i actually i think might be worried about this but i think whether the next president nominating is a democrat or a republican i think they will think about the religious issue and try to find a protestant and secondarily tried to break the ivy league monopoly. That is harder to do because of the meritocracy point but those are going to be secondary. Host talk in shorthand about the courts liberal wing and conservative wing but as you point out in many cases the votes dont defy its cell uniquely. What sort of generally speaking are the kinds of cases where you might tend to see a more unlikely set of alliances among the justices . Guest i think the first thing to say is a point that i made early in the book which is that there are nine people. That is a relatively small decision and i had some colleagues who knew better than me how to figure this out. If you figure that seven of them in every case will vote as conservatives or liberals but two of them will take an independent view in this particular case and if you figure that happens in 70 or 80 of the cases, been roughly speaking a quarter of the cases wont line up ideologically. That is just by doing the math. Lots of cases will line up ideologically but what leads to that, each justice will have something that they called hobbyhorses, particular issues that they care a lot about and have views that are idiosyncratic relative to their general ideological companions. So Justice Scalia is probably the easiest example. He is a reliable conservative on many issues including the criminal Justice System and the rights of criminal defendants but he had a hobbyhorse about the right to confrontation, the right of the defendants view actually on the stand of the courtroom a person who is testifying against him. So, in a confrontation case Justice Scalia will vote with the liberals. Each one of them probably has some similar kinds of hobbyhorses. Justice breyer is interested in the Technical Expertise and likes to let technical experts make decisions and that is the kind of thing that leads to these decisions in which the partisan alignment. Host of course one of those was the Affordable Care act and as you point out it wasnt clear up front necessarily what the consequences of the election of 2012 with the weather it upheld or struck down the law and you said the only sensible thing for justice to do with the tube put political calculations aside and follow his or her general view of the constitution. Do you think thats what happened . Guest i do. I have to say when i made this argument in front of legal colleagues, intellectual scholars everybody is skeptical about this particularly about Justice Roberts splitting the baby decision and striking it down. Upholding most of it on another ground and justices kagan and dryer agreeing with Justice Roberts about another part of it virtually everybody either thinks there was some kind of political bargain over strategic acclamation going on. I am very skeptical about that because frankly the way i think about it is this. Go back to it april of 2012 which is when they hear the arguments at the end of march and the decision is going to be the four july. There is a president ial Campaign Going on. They know that its going to be between barack obama and mitt romney and then ask yourself supposing you are trying to do a strategic calculation about anything, about what would help the Republican Party or help the Democratic Party, what would preserve the importance of the Supreme Court as an institution over the long run and what decision would prepare the reputation . If you dont know whos going to win in november if you just cant figure out what a strategically sensible or a student thing to do would be. Actually i quote a blogger who tries to run through the calculations for chief Justice Roberts with respect to winning the election and you just dont know in april. You just dont know what might help in november. And that is chirla if you move away from this narrow political concern reserving the courts reputation. So i think you know if you woke up and said well i want to be strategic you would just say i dont know what to do. You might as well do what you think the law says you ought to do and make some sort of judgment about what your view of the lot is on these issues. Host it was recorded that just as robbers change his vote from striking the law down to upholding it. Do you think it was that he changed his mind or was it that his mind wasnt entirely madeup . I have to preface this by saying i will never know what the real story is. 50 years from now there will be papers from inside the court which will reveal what actually happened but right now all we can do is speculate based on a couple of weeks and the actual outcome. It is clear that the argument was held in march and its clear that for other conservatives expected that the statute was going to be struck down. Chief Justice Roberts circulated an opinion in early may in which what he ultimately did which was to say it was not justified under one provision of the constitution but it is justified under another position. Its clear that the other conservatives were surprised by that. So the question is what is the basis of their surprise . Did they say in march they discussed the case . I think the statute is unconstitutional as a whole and the expected an opinion with respect to them or did he say which is much more likely i think the statute violates the Commerce Clause of the constitution and so i will draft an opinion dealing with that. Then as he worked on the opinion he realized theres this other issue and he hadnt really thought about it. He hadnt thought systematically about it. He hadnt told his colleagues what his views were as they were developing. They were surprised and made when they saw what he did on the tax issue. I think that is the more plausible but its not that he said this whole thing is unconstitutional. He did communicate a sense that he thought it was unconstitutional mostly on the Commerce Clause grounds. Host you also point out that the particular issues raised in the case were not ones that conservative legal scholars have spent a lot of time thinking about before. Do you think that made it easier for him to mediate from the other conservatives on the court . Guest if we go back to what we were talking about earlier, politics is the philosophy. Its something that justices come to and its reasonably well developed. Jurisprudence had a welldeveloped theory about the scope of congresss power to regulate interstate commerce. That was available after chief Justice Roberts. And he deployed it. There was no similar background thinking in jurisprudential terms about the scope of the power to tax. He didnt have the Resources Available in his general ideology. I dont want to say he is specificaspecifica lly about chief Justice Roberts that what was available was a purely Party Political position. That is by 2012 striking down the Affordable Care act was the position of the Republican Party but if you are thinking jurisprudentially rather than in Party Political terms the fact that the position in the Republican Party doesnt matter and that might be a detriment, that you might not want the court to see it as just coming up with a theory that just so happens to fit with what the Republican Party of 2012 plots. That is sort of what happened in bush v. Gore and its not good for the court to do that. Host one of the other big cases that you talk about involved gun control in the district of columbia. Can you tell us the story of how the heller case came into being . Guest the gun control or the gun rights litigation is an illustration of sort of the orchestration of constitutional litigation over a quite long period. In some sense 20 years ago maybe when legal academics partially with support Financial Support from the National Rifle association but partially for their own interest and started examining the background of this amendment and developed an approach to the Second Amendment that was quite favorable to the idea of gun rights come to that gun owners had an individual right to possess their weapons. You have this now body of thought to support litigation. One indication of this in 1986, 76 and early 80s both chief Justice Burger and robert expressed skeptical views about the argument that gun control is unconstitutional and both of them are at the time quite conservative. This body develops afterwards and serves jurisprudence on this issue. And then there is a series and its a complicated story with i dont want to get into here but you can read it in the book a series of moves to generate litigation. That is the tradition that goes back and even to Thurgood Marshall and maybe before that in which Interest Groups try to get litigants who will push their ideological positions forward. There is a lot of interesting maneuvering about that and you will notice its somewhat of a moderate state of Interest Group litigation and eventually gets to the Supreme Court and five justices accept the individual rights theory that had been developed over the generations. Host in this context you talk about original public meaning originalism which is not a very catchy name but can you explain what that is and how it came into play in the howard case . I. There is an interesting from my point of view, intellectual intellectual about originalism. First it was proposed narrowly as it counter toward liberalism. It was a method that was going to have content that would be nonwarren court liberalism so originalist originally began by criticizing the warren court for not relying on something of the original meaning of constitution. It started out as intention. What the framers of the constitution had intended. It turns out that is a very difficult position to sustain it for a variety of reasons. So originalism was transformed by trying to make it better. Its not a criticism of a position. They confronted challenges and they thought about how to address the challenge and they came up with the current version which as you say original public meaning of originalism which comes in various flavors but the core idea is there at these words written in the documents. Try to figure out what a reasonably wellinformed person in 1789 or 1791 would have thought those words meant would have understood the words to mean and then take that and apply it to the problem. For a variety of reasons thats been alternately unsuccessful and in the book i quote a scholar who was seven or eight barriers of original meaning, originalism and as an intellectual matter it probably doesnt do the kind of work that conservatives hoped it would do. But it remains an important part of the public understanding of what the court ought to be doing. Host and i mean it seems like the problem is the historical document is just not going to be that clear and as you said what did someone in 1791 think about the right to bear arms . You could kind of come out either way. I think what you said with originalism you could tug it to do almost anything. I see thats right. I wrote a book about the Second Amendment in which i went through the historical evidence that the court and Justice Stevens into centralized on and i think i see this in the book and if i dont in this book i stayed in the other book, my own judgment is if you look at the evidence with an unbiased eye i dont particularly care one way or the other about the Second Amendment. I went at it and you look at the historical information. It is in favor of the individual rights interpretation the court but then when you say what do you do under those circumstances . Its not clear even if its 60 40 you have to do a lot of other theoretical work about how you interpret the constitution. To figure out what you do and a 6040 situation and thats going to be true. Either its going to be ambiguous or to make any judgment at all. And supporters of originalism have now developed another variant of it which says well yeah there is original meaning which we have to follow that is actually a relatively narrow range of cases and then theres constitutional construction which is different from original meaning. And that covers most of what is going on. At that point originalism from an intellectual point of view and from a Prudential Point of view has lost most of what was the track if about it from the beginning. It still is important in the Public Discourse most people think that taking into account what the constitution meant when it was adopted is important and every judge thinks its important but its not the only thing. Host moving onto Business Cases the conventional wisdom is that the Roberts Court has been probusiness. What is your take on that . Guest i think the bottom line to use a business term in the Roberts Court is a probusiness court. When you look in more detail it becomes more complicated. So i mentioned earlier that the court is now doing a lot of patents and copyright cases. Those tend to be business against Business Cases and however they come out in some sense either it will be the small the Small Company making the patent or the big Company Making the patented goods available to the general public. But its hard to fit that into well these are probusiness decisions by the court because they are but not necessarily business. I think what you have to do is look at what you would call i think the important cases and even here it gets complicated. Probably the most important in some sense, the most important Business Case in the Roberts Court has been a case about Global Warming in which the court by a 54 vote came out on the liberal side in favor of governmental regulation of carbon emissions. That looks like a loss for business in a really important case. I argued that its probably less important than you might think from the headlines or from what it looks like based on the opinion because the impact on this miss can work through the long regulatory process and probably outcome is going to be less dramatic than you might have thought. Lets go the is moving with her her forward with it so it is happening to some extent. Guest to some extent there will be legislative responses. My understanding is that most climate change, people really dont think of the epa approach. Its not a criticism of the epa. They do what they do but these kinds of regulations, come most people in the field i think belief are not the best one to deal with the problem so maybe congress will intervene for a better solution. So exactly what that decision is is maybe we dont really know yet. Host that was supposed to be such a battle so maybe theyre regulatory scheme will unfold because its too hard for congress to do anything else. Guest thats absolutely right. Host what are the losses than for business . Guest it might be pretty substantial. Okay, so lets put the important cases aside. There are a series of procedural cases which have more or less uniformly come down on the side of making it harder for people to see businesses for concededly unlawful action. They involve procedures for class actions for getting a whole bunch of people together in a single lawsuit to sue a company and they involve arbitration. The most traumatic one i talk about a couple of these cases in the book. The most dramatic one is a case that the court decided last year on arbitration and which the structure of the analysis was that the majority of greed that they were upholding arbitration and circumstances where there could well have been a violation of the antitrust laws so these are situations where procedure will prevent a violation of federal law from being invented. That is a good position for a business. They can engage in behavior and get away with it. Not in the sense that it becomes lawful but in the sense that the procedural system is unavailable for people who might challenge it. Host one of the courts i think least popular decisions has involved campaign reform, the Citizens United case. He wrote wrote that the president bomb us fears about Citizens United were overstated which with some skepticism but what is your basis for that . Guest there are a couple of reasons but one is from my perspective as a legal academic, Citizens United itself was i hate to say this a relatively narrow decision. In itself it expanded opportunities for corporate expenditures only a bit, and it doesnt look like big publicly held corporations really to engage in a lot of independent expenditures on the campaigns that they couldnt have engaged in before Citizens United. Citizens united clearly has a large symbolic effect and it did seem to encourage people who might have been holding back from doing things that they thought might have been prohibitive but might not offend. They open their wallets but its not clear that there is an enormous advantage on the republican side for these independent expenditures. I think one of the things that the tea party phenomena such just is that independent spending can cause problems for candidates. So, i dont personally i dont like the amount of money that is being spent. It just feels icky or Something Like that but its not clear to me that ought to be regarded as a serious constitutional problem and indeed some aspect of it is, it has to be right. I mean if i care a lot about a candidate and i want to spend my entire fortune and i happen to be rich, i dont see why the government should be able to stop you from doing what i can to help with the money that i have. I understand why you dont want me to give money to the candidate and these are independent expenditures and opportunities for corruption are less. They are not absent but they are less. So i am skeptical of that, the impact of Citizens United on the political system. Host of course Holding Corporations people got a lot of attention but in the book you point out that might be sort of misplaced and maybe the bigger issue is not corporations but billionaires who are propping up candidates. Guest right, and if there is a problem its money not the form of donor. My favorite example of this is something i have to be careful with in my phrasing. The Koch Brothers are these billionaires who are demonized by the left as providing an enormous amount of of support for very conservative positions by politicians. And liberals say Citizens United allows the coat brothers to make their contributions, to make their contributions from the corporate of Coke Industries. It appears to be the case that Coke Industries is what is known as a subchapter s corp. But if it is some type of s. Corp. What it means is there is no difference between Koch Industries making a contribution and the Koch Brothers nick in the contribution. If the Koch Brothers are a problem and if they are its it is because they are really rich not because they controlled a company that can make expenditures on behalf of the candidate. Host the procedure of that case was a little bit odd in they had the argument which leads me to one question. How much do you think oral arguments even matter . Guest i think they sometimes matter some but basically they dont matter all that much. In the Affordable Care act the Immediate Reaction to this as one reporter put it was a train wreck of an argument. There was nothing that they search in general could have done to keep that train wreck from happening. As eloquent as Daniel Webster one of the greatest orators in Supreme Court history and he was going to lose on this issue. In Citizens United jeff toobin of the new yorker says what happened was after the first argument chief Justice Roberts drafted an opinion that would resolve the issue on lateral grounds and he circulated it and it just wouldnt fly inside the court. He couldnt get people to sign on to it. And so they needed to have an argumentative focus on the issues that troubled the justices who didnt find the roberts opinion satisfactory. Host how sensitive do you think the justices are to Public Opinion or reaction to their decisions . Do they care a . Guest i think that is also a complicated question. Everybody likes to be liked but they also dont hang out with everybody. They hang out with a certain circle of people and i think they are sensitive to what people in their circles care about or what they think of them that, of the people in those circles are most likely going to be supportive pretty much no matter what. Now chief Justice Roberts is not going to get invitation to the Federalist Society convention for a wild but he may get one every year or two. The federal society is an organization for conservative lawyers. They dont like what he did in the Affordable Care decision. When he goes to the American Bar Association meetings or other places people will be deferential to him and that will be fine with him. I think thats pretty much true of all of them. In some sense theyll want the court to be an important institution. They want people to think well of the court but again there are nine of them and just to be sort of crude about this for them cant stop five of them from doing something that therefore think will damage the courts reputation if there is no way to deal with it. So yes they want to be thought well of on the whole in the circles where they circulate. They are well thought of and thats probably enough for them. Host did you get any input from them in writing the book lacks. Guest note, and not at all. I relied entirely on i have the discussion of Justice Hagan s that ground is an academic where i relied on my knowledge of the academic circles. Host and you know her. Guest i know her. She was the dean of harvard when i was hired. I felt a certain gravity toward her but thats the only place where i relied on something that was not public. Everything else is based on public sources. Host it was a real pleasure talking with you. The book is in the balance by mark tushnet. Thank you. Guest thank you. Writing my memoir was difficult in a way because journalists are unfamiliar with the word i. Were used to writing about others not ourselves. Now i remember telling the Washington Post when i started to write the book, that wouldnt sell because it had no sex in it. [laughter] also published in 1999 was john mccains auto biography. I think the most important thing we can do is put a plan in place to keep the economy
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.