hearing you talk and when we read these sections of the book, you yet a vision of what the country could have been like had, had a man like that been given a chance, had plessy not happened, had separate but equal never become the law of the land. i mean -- >> yeah. >> it's just, it's striking. and so tell us what happened to him at the end of his life after that really devastating supreme court decision. >> well, the rest of his life was certainly not, not a failure. we only got into that period of about 12 years when black rights were defended by the supreme court. you know, he rosemeadly to prominence -- rose immediately to h prominence at a time when, again, back votes were the difference between republicans winning and losing. ohio, which was the most important state at that time. so he was able to get -- for himself and others. he was able to play a role in creatinger a national african-american leadership with people like frederick douglass where there would be conventions every year and meetings where they would put forward a national political -- he became personal friends with people hlike ulysses grant and rutherford b. hayes. he entertained lavishly. he did things like he started the first all-back national guard battalion in cincinnati. all was not always peaceful on the political frontwa in that there were other african-american leaders who felt that he was too beholden to the republican party. there was a series of debates he had with sort of a rival but who was sometimes a friend named peter clarkme who believed that neither republicans nor democrat cans were ever going to serve black interests and that they needed to be savvy and negotiate with whites as a unified force. robert harlan took the party line in that, many that case. but it was almost like a lip done/douglass style debate between them in ohio. after 1876 there was a consensus inht the white community that sacrificing blacks was -- allow business to continue as normal. whitee southerners were never going to accept the equality of african-americans, and white northerners stopped trying eventually. because voting rights were somewhat more secure in ohio than in other states, the black community there retained some power, and robert harlan retained some power, and he even managed topo get elected to the state legislature. so it wasn't like there was a total barrier, but you could see in the arc of his life after 87, that he was sort -- it was sort of a slow period of disillusionment and loss. you know, there started to be more racial incidents. there was a terrible confrontation between the black national guardsmen and a group of white democrats on, before an election eve that almost became a legendary riot and partly because of robert harlan's efforts. his son, who was a lawyer and a prominent man himself, went to a theater, took his children to a birthday party to a theater many cincinnati and got -- in cincinnati and got forced to go up to the balcony and refused. and so, you know, here he was mt. same city where he's serving as state representative, his grandchildren are plaintiffs ina a case against racial segregation. so it was a period of, you know, decline and disappointment. nonetheless, he lived a buoyant, optimistic high, and there's so many more anecdotes you could throw in there. this was a globetrotter who, you know, was gambling with general santa ana in cuba and visiting paris and all this kind of stuff. so he was an amazing man. but what's notable is his descendants, all of whom were prominent in the african-american community, his grandson -- he were real sort of aristocracy within the black community, but there was no money in the black community. so they all sort of suffered in their own way, you know, prominent businesses started to tie out, and, you know, struggles foror money and that kind of thing. and it just, you can see how segregation constrained black -- [inaudible] >> so i want to bring in some of the questions from the audience here. edward asks, as a lone dissenter, how well or not did harlan get along with his colleagues on the court? >> that's a fascinating question, and there sort of are two answers. i think that he got along pretty well in terms of the basic social etiquette of the job, and he even occasionally there's a story of him sharing an apple on a streetcar with justice mckenna who was a frequent, frequently in the majority while he was dissenting. on the other hand, i think it was known that there was less decorum on the court generally in those those days. when the income tax was ruled unconstitutional, there was some commentary about how he was -- [inaudible] shaking his fist at justice fields who was an antagonist at various points. so i think some supreme court historians today would say, well, you know, it was a little wild west back then on court. they weren't entirely practicing decorum. of interestingly also, people in the black community who pay more attention to john marshall harlan than any of whites did, people like frederick douglass would write about his tremendous courage and his willingness to stand up to all of his colleagues, stand up to the white community. and that's a consistent theme among, among black people. i will say there's nothing in his letters or many his -- or in his, the written record that's available now to show that he was himself ostracized for these positions, that he was receiving death threats, aha he was getting, youat know, his family was being harassed. today may have been and chose not to collect those letters or -- but but the there isn't any evidence of hem. which leads me to believe many two things. one is because he was a lone dissenter, no one in the white community felt threatened by him. he was the only one, he was ec sent are rick, you know, somebody unlettenning but crazy -- unthreatening but crazy in their minds. in the black community, there was this assumption that whites were many collusion because whites sort of were in political collusion and a lot of these northerners were closing their eyes and voting in cases where they knew they were doing the right thing, but they thought it was right for the country to try to repair relations with the south. and yet, you know, the black community may have seen it as a more insidious conspiracy than itor actually felt to someone le john marshall harlan. >> there's another question that said wasn't there a gratuitous anti-asian -- [inaudible] in harlan's dissent in policely sr.s -- plessy v. ferguson? >> i think that's a fair comment, but it's part of a more complicated story. there's a line in harlan's famous dissent in plessy v. ferguson. this is by far his most famous dissent, and it's one that is frequently quoted today. it includes many sort of iconic lines, the constitution is color blind and neither knows or tolerates -- [inaudible] and the homeless is the peer of the most powerful. there's no caste here. at another point in the dissent, he says there is a race that is so different from our own or martialty or manager, so different from our own, whatever, speaking of chinese race, that we conot even allow them in this country. and then he makes point that, nonetheless, chinese people are allowed in the white code and african-americans were not. now, i think in part this was a reasonable legal point because the state of louisiana was saying everyone's treated equally here, there's one place forte blacks, one place for whites. and harlan was making the point that everyone knows purpose to separate out blacks is not to separate whites or anything, and one reason we know is there's no problem when chinese get in. there was separately a law reviewer article from about 25 years ago from somebody who i know who has read my book and blurbedd the book even, gabriel chen who sort of -- how harlan was not the hero of chinese that he was to african-americans. and i think if you keep it just at that point, that's true. finish i don't think there's any evidence that he had any sort of particulart animus towards chinese. i don't think that, i mean, there were some counter-examples. this was a supreme court case where the, a terrible case where a gang of whites in california, you know, chased and harassed a group of chinese so they ended up taking u refuge on a housebot on river that cap capsizedded and they died. and when they were, when they were prosecuted, the gang was prosecuted under the civil rights a act, they claimed that the language of the act said citizens, used the term citizens, and the chinese were not citizens. >> wow. >> nonetheless, they were in this country as part of a treaty thatpa said that they would be citizens.actly like none theless, the court majority could not see through to that citizen being equal and all that, and so they voided the prosecution. harlan took a very forceful -- [inaudible] in favor of the chinese victims in saying that, like, you know, the treaty says they be treated like citizens, therefore, these civill rights approximates -- protections need to be extended. it's a very mixed picture, and i think it's fair to say not only was he a hero to african-americans, but he stood up for hawaiians and puerto ricans, native americans. but the record in the chinese case is a little more difficult. >> so sarah is asking do we know much about his influences outside of the possible familial relationship something is so can you kind of tell us -- >> he had, he had other contacts with african-americans because he had grown up in a slave-owning family x and he had a, you know, he had a -- [inaudible] who was african-american. there's an incident where the daughter of his wet nurse had, her dress caught on fire x he jumped to try to save her and all that and ends up almost dying himself of burns. >> but there must have been -- [inaudible] there that that must have been true of a lot of white southerners. they were raised by black women. >> they were. and beyond that he also had a deep respect for frederick doug las. -- frederick douglass. he had a longstanding relationship with frederick douglass. his eldest daughter, edith, taught in the bethel industrial school in washington which was a school for the children of freed men and women to teach them industrial skills and hope to get them jobs. andem it was her charitable interest, but then she died of typhoid fever at age 26. and harlan wrote an anguished letter where he said every minute of every day is going to be devoted to preserving her legacy. she was really the heart and soul of the family. so i think he was influenced by her care and concern for african-american children. later in his life he spoke frequently at washington's met to propoll tan ame -- metro propoll tan, and he met, he would meet regularly with black lawyers. there was a case that, a horrific lynching case that he intervened many pretty much single-handedly to try to make sure that city officials who had allowed this legislation to take place were prosecuted. so his efforts on behalf of african-americans went way, way beyond his relationship with robert harlaning. so clearly, he, you know, he was committed to the equality of african-americans, and he believed that this was a way of repairing the damage -- [inaudible] and he, he came to believe that inequality under the law was what caused the civil war, it's what almost destroyed the american experiment and republican government. and so he was deeply committed to enforcing equality. and i think that also informed some of his views in the economic cases. because of dred scott, i think cred scott was the moment when he believe -- dred scott was the moment when he believed the civil war was inevitable and all that he had worked for was falling apart. so he understood what it meant for the supreme court to get it wrong. so unlike a lot of these other justices who it was sort of a theoretical challenge, he really looked at these cases in terms of who was being harmed, who was beingwh helped, wow how would ts affect the country 50 years from now. and all of that was in his opinions. >> we've got anonymous questioner who says can you comment on the way harlan's color blind constitution, poem formerly the bee con of civil rights, mainly to support claims of reverseof discrimination, affirmative action and similar policies. >> there's no question that that is an argument, that is anti-affirmative action forces it made for a long time. it started with william bradford refolds who was the head of the civil rights division under the reagan administration and began a period of retrenchment on some civil rights protections. he wrote an influential article in "the new york times" sort of saying that, you know, harlan is a hero, harlan got it right. he said the constitution's color blind, but color blind means no affirmative action. and that led to some, you know, angry feelings, obviously, from opponents. thurgood marshall, who was on the court then and was always an admirer of harlan's and put harlan's dissent of plessy -- [inaudible] thurgood marshall defended harlan and said the constitution is color blind, and if people would listen to harlan, we wouldn't have had 70 years in which it wasn't color blind, which is why we need affirmative action. i think it's a little bit of a semantical kind of debate. he didn't say, therefore, we will rule out any race-based remedies for past discrimination. i think that, you know, the challenge presented by affirmative action is an obvious one. but if harlan's comment about the constitution is color blind were not such a powerful statement, people would be arguing just about the concept of equality, you know? if does equality allow for racial considerations or like affirmative action. >> all right. we have -- are there any useful -- stephen, are there any useful parallels to be drawn with the great dissenter of the rehnquist and roberts courts, ruth bader ginsburg, which -- >> there are a lot of parallels. ruth bader ginsburg has cited harlan as an influence, and she very late in life when he really embraced the role of dissenter, she started praising great dissents from the past and would talk frequently about a harlan. she would mention benjamin curtis also, a massachusetts justice, who was the justice i had mentioned who objected to tred scott. dred scott. but i think that harlan presents a sense of hope or offers a sense of hope to someone like fans or people like -- who are fans of ruth bader ginsburg because, you know, he showed how defense in one era become majority opinions in another era and how those very documents and those very argues and those very records that are preserved can become part of the decision-making process in the next generation. and there's no one method for the supreme court by which the supreme court can change its mind and the law can change. but if you look at the history of harlan's dissents, almost all these mets combined. -- methods. let's look at the antitrust cases, the sherman antitrust act being declared unconstitutional. the supreme court found a way to say, no, they weren't a 40 knoply. harlan was the seoul dissenter -- sole dissenter. pretty much within five years the same justices who had ruled the other way began to kind of see the light are. i don't know that it was so much harlan that was persuading them, it may have been things that were happening in the country that was persuading them. but there are examples of the same people really changing theirli mind. oliver wendell holmes changed his mind onol the first amendme. so within harlan's lifetime, hay greatly relaxed the rules and allowedded for more trust actions. but it took maybe 15 or 20 years until they got to a position where they were really allowing antitrust. that's a very positive example. mt. mechanic tax days -- in the income tax case which overruled a hundred years of precedent and, you know, a case where everyone was rolling their eyes afterwards, it took a constitutional amendment to allow the income tax. but to get the process rolling, the big obstacle was less getting the states to ratify it as to get congress, which was full of rich people in especially the senate, to accept it. and this congressman who would later to go on to be secretary of state under franklin roosevelt, he would read harlan's dissent on the floor of the house as a way of showing how wrong headedded the original decision was andnd how important it was for an amendment to -- remove it and overrule it. so that's one example. the locker case gets overruled in time because of franklin roosevelt's threat to the e expand the court. the so-called switch in time and save nine. harlan, you know, in 1965, 1954, 1965, both of harlan's defenses in plessy very ferguson were part of the actual arguments in the brown case in '54, and his dissents in the civil rights cases ofof 1883 were parts of te arguments that overturned that in 1965. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> it came in so many different forms. but nonetheless, if you are ruth bader ginsburg in the haas years of your life, yes, you can apply benjamin curtis for taking a principled stand and leaving the court after dred scott, but harlan is a actually the better example in terms of how your actual views can become participant of the law. >> we've got three more questions and only twelve more minutes, so let me get through these, and then i want to close out with sort of a thought about to to today and bringing this book forward. >> we'll do a lightning round. i'll give a quicker answer. [laughter] >> ellen, a former -- who i concern we love, is now a fantastic reporter for "the new york times," writes harlan was from kentucky, not a northern state or a southern state. to what tent tent did this inform his legal view and school of thought? if was he singular? if. >> there was a school of thought from the border states, and he frequently paid tribute to his professors at transylvania university law school for putting that view forward. there were some things that were problematic in that school of thought, and i think this also might be a critique of some of harlan's views in that they were, the elites in kentucky were constitutional unionists; that is, they believedt. in a national -- where the u.s. constitution is not sort of federal single destiny awaited the united states. the part of that is that they were in love with the idea that the united states was a unique experiment and that people in america were only place where people were not under the thumb of authority. and it made them skeptical of immigrants. so some of those professors that he was admiring in tran sill vain ya university were also people who joined the know-nothing party and also briefly associated with -- [inaudible] that were known for their anti-catholic feelings and many some cases, you know, anti-british and anyone who was living under an authoritarian force. the theory, the legal theory being that they didn't understand democracy. they were subservient. that, you know, that's probably too literal a kind of question. i thinkat the kentucky influence came in a lot of ways. we had mentioned earlier it's different economies not based on capital investments and, you know, tremendous imbalances of wealth gave him sort of a different perspective. and, you know, while its racial situation was horrendous, there was interaction with african-americans which none of the northern justices had at all. and the fact that the ku klux klan was asserting itself so strongly in kentucky, i think, also gave some of a moral impetition -- impetus. >> all right. nancy, i understand that he was a fundamentalist christian of the time. what do you know about how his faith may have influenced his thoughts and decision? >> this is a difficult question to answer, and i probably shy it a little too much becausee i think theology's a very difficultuc to grasp. obviously, i don't have a ph.d. in theology, so i can't -- [inaudible] i will say several things. he was a devout presbyterian, and there were two doctrines that i think -- substantially. one was his home preacher who was a famous theologian of the time believed in this idea that godbe has a city vine plan for everything. divine plan for everything. and i think early in harlan's life, 1850s, when you say how can you be aware of the injustices of slavery and yet allow slavery to continue and still be part of a slave-owning family, the view among the presbyterians was that god had a plan. they would say, you know, god, they would preach the sort of master-servant relationship and, you know, that you have to be kind and you have to be, you know, reliable. and they acknowledge the humanity of people in the subservient position. and the church had black parishioners as well in a different part of the church. but they also had this idea that, you know, it's all part of mysterious god's plan which i think may have prevented action. by contrast, there's another doctrine that was the sort of spiritual agency where, you know, people can, people on earth should live out values. that later in his life may have given him something to being a lone dissenter, you know? there's a lot of -- frederick douglass wrote him a letter after the sole dissent in the civil rights case of 1883 which was a crushing blow for douglass, and he said i'm reminded of something i would say when people thought abolition would never happen and i say this to you, one man with god isma a majority. and i think harlan came to believe that, that if you're on god's side, you're good. >> a great line. that's a great line. a couple of people have asked similar questions. they're asking about whether there's any -- what was the biggest challenge in researching this book. and i'dgg love to know what was the biggest surprise, you know? you're in there trying to sort of dig through history to create a mental picture of a man and really -- how he changed his life. what were the biggest challenges and sort of, was there anything that just shocked you? >> well, the biggest challenge was in assessing the relationship with robert harlan, because there are no letters between them in the second half of theirwe life. no idea why, it could just be shoddy recordkeeping. one of robert harlan's letters were collected. john marshalll harlan had spotty recordkeeping, so it could be an accident. it could be that they didn't talk. it could be that robert was traveling to washington regularly because his son was living there, so they could have talked a lot. >> right. >> we just don't know much about thing second half of their lives. we know things from third parties. there were contacts, you know, it wasn't like harlan stopped talking to robert and vice versa, but we don't have communications between the two of them. that was a frustration. a surprise, to me, was just how bad the supreme court was during that era because, again, in law school you're taught these decisions and those justices. i have to say, all the decisions we talked about on both sides, there arehe glimmers of, you kn, sharp thinking in some of these decisions, but mostly they're just abominations. nobody today, you know, nobody on the right, nobody on the left is going to endorse these decisions. it's just, it's kind of shocking how bad they are. [laughter] when you go through them. and so, you know, when you're talking about that long a period on the supreme court and talking about the history of the united states and you're talking about this personal story and this personal -- plot to be tied together, so all to those challenges kind of combined into one. >> so we've got five minutes left. jay asks -- this was something that came in my mind too -- is harlan county, kentucky, named after harlan or his family? >> [inaudible] i've been told no, but i don't -- [laughter] i haven't, like, researched it closely. of it's kind of shocking that it wouldn't be, but people say, oh, no, it's a different harlan -- [laughter] it must be a different harlan within the same two harlan brothers -- founded harlan station. but it's not named after him. [laughter] .. when you look back at thepast what does it tell you about the story where living right now ? >> it tells me that it's a terrible mistake for the supreme court to allow itself to kind of negate the will of the people. i'm thinking more of economic and in the race case it's sort of the opposite. the problem with the race s case is they only to find people as white people. in the economic cases you had a will to change the country starting in the early 1890s because there was a panic in 1893. so they had passed the sherman antitrust act, had to pass the income tax because the federal government was funded by dtariffs, the tariffs on a local red would affect the richest person on fifth avenue. the income tax was only apply to people about a certain income so it was much more burdensome to the rich and it was also seen by the rich as opening the door tomuch higher levels of taxation . so it was much more protective. and yet the supreme court eventually because of class size found that pretext that again even the most conservative justices today would not endorse oraccept to essentiallyoverturn the will of the people . that's not the purpose of the supreme court . by the same token, when you look at the race cases, for one thing it's not , it's not simply the case that white people were unanimously against some of these protections for african-americans . the fbill of rights cases invalidated a lot of what was passed by congress in 1875 and signed by the president that's not some sparring. i also think when you get to plessy versus ferguson it is entirely possible that the court could have ruled the other way. it would have infuriated the thousands and stuff but the country was accustomed to having themselves be infuriated by things at various points. it had a lack of moral courage in that case. >> it's breathtaking as an african-american to readabout this period of time where we literally go backwards with rights , with in so many ways. we are used for learning about history as an arc bending towards justice there are times we go backwards. it's amazing to think about where we would be today if people had listened to him. so i think there is someone who's going to come and close us out but peter, i could talk to you about this all day. i hope everybody buys the book and they get a chance to attend another event like this. thanks so much for the conversation, peter. >> thank you peter and sarah for such a fascinating hour of truly amazing stories and so much to take away from this evening. thank you all for such a thoughtful audience. we highly encourage you to pick up the grief. there is a check link in the chatand we have questions that will help shape our call programs and we'd love to hear from you on that feedback. as a reminder we love to see you at upcoming virtual advance . the floor is open to everyone that it's a beautiful inspiring place of arts and opportunities for conversation and a new exhibition of finely crafted books from the new world chapter of the book workers is now on viewand we love to welcome you in . go to our website for more information and thank you again peter and sarah were joining us . be well, be safe and we hope to see you allagain soon . >> thank you. >> if you're enjoying book tv sign up for our newsletter using the qr code to receive a schedule of upcoming programs, bookfestivals and why . book tv every sunday on c-span2 or anytime at booktv.org. television for serious readers. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's stories and book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction booksand authors . funding comes from these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure,upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small . charter is connecting us >> charter communications along with these television companies supports c-span2 as a public service . >> hello everyone, i am a manager. [inaudible] i'm delighted to have you here today to share with ali and kim wehle. if you haven't been here before welcome to kramers. this was founded in 1976 for events. if you're a returning book lover we're glad to have you here and returning to the in person events. it's about our fourth event so far so welcome. if you could please pass your cell phones, it's always unnecessary to say that but i say it today allow me to introduce our guest author . . ali is a correspondent for nbc news. to otapply on both president biden and harris throughout the campaign trail. [inaudible] as an nbc news road warrior she reported on elizabeth warren, senator any clover chart and michael bloomberg during the democratic primary . she previously covered the trump administration as a recorder for nbc news and was a political campaign reporter on the 2016 presidential campaign. she joined nbc news in 2012. her first book why has america put a woman in the white house yet will be out in august 2022. kim wehle is a lawyer. she served as a legal analyst for cbs news appearing on face the nation with margaret brennan. she was a regular guest on msnbc, cnn, and npr and has appeared on fox news, c-span and pds. she has written for the baltimore times and "l.a. times". she is a former assistant united states attorney associate heindependent counsel and thewhitewater investigation . and an author of the book how to read the constitution and why. what you need toknow about learning and why and how to think like a lawyer and why . ken's book is available at the counter of the bookstore. please help me welcome our colleague kim wehle. >> i'm so excited to be here. feeling good about being back in person and being hereto celebrate kim's amazing achievement of this latest book . you're so prolific and we were just talking about how many she has and i think it's so striking you saved this big moment for ethics and civic engagement. i think your book speaks to that and of course many of us know kim from her columns, from many appearances. i'm thankful as someone who's all the time one msnbc you and i get to float in boxes next to each other so to be here next to this person is a real treat. i've been excited for about doing this talk for weeks but i'm excited we're doing it today wbecause the first thing that i thought of this morning was the news that we ended up covering all day which was on the leaked memo or decision lof the supreme court about the dobbs versus mississippi case. and the first thing i thought was how do i think through this like a lawyer would. i'm glad we're here to talk about this tonight because i wondered for you how you adjusted all of the different pieces of that and how we as an audience of people who are engaged in following this news what we should be looking at. >> let me first thank bekramer for having me and thank you allie for doingthis and everyone for being here. it's an apt question because in the book i talk about five steps. i break down thinking like a lawyer in five steps . the number one step and one that students have said is the biggest take away for my classes is to take a big issue and break it down into smaller issues . so we are in a very polarized world . people say that all the time but when i say that what i mean is where in the black and white thinking. i'm right, you're wrong. heads i win, tails you lose. we go to our camps and entrench ourselves in these camps and one of those divisive issues now for several decades. and it's are you pro or against? and actually it's a much more complicated nuancedquestion . if you took the question and i supporting abortion rights are not on many sub issues there like you have to think about the healthcare implications for the person who is finds herself with those unwanted pregnancies. you have to think about the implications for the art of constitutional law and other rights in america . you might have to think about the moral and religious implications for yourself . justice alito opened that decision talking about the morality of the issue which really isn't the job of law. it's the job of the individual and the family and the faith but if you take that big issue and break it down intosmaller ones, immediately you realize there are any easy answers . if you want to empathize one aspect of it maybe people believe, many people believe the life of the unborn child is respect but if that is your priority you have to givesomething up . you're going to have to give up the needs or interests of the awwoman particularly low incomewomen are disproportionately affected by these kinds of laws . that's really step one and we will talk about the other steps but getting informed on the facts, the legal implications that bear oneach of these decisions and turning over . saying what's the other side of the coin here? i tried to say imagine the person that you respect, one of the best arguments they will make for positioning you don't agree with. where not used the thinking that way and that's what the book tries to get through and i've beendoing a lot of tv and radio o today trying to break it down into what is this really about . thumbs-up or thumbsdown issue, it's really the most critical elements of it . >> what are talking about with the method in this book is so important to how all of us can apply the ideas to how to even make sentence of this really wide-ranging opinion that came down and it's going to have to impacts over the course of the next few weeks and months politically and of course socially but it's really your first book that allows you the perfect insight into this moment particularly because it's what's in the constitution. what are our rights here e? i wonder what your first thought was when you read that alito draft and what argument he was making? >> the critical part of my series of books is why. if you understand the why you can understand thewhat . why do we have constitutional rights and when i ask people this question what is the constitutional right inevitably someone will say it's just something i have as an american but actually functionally it's not so much that what is a constitutional right? is the ability to go to court and get an order stopping government from being too aggressive into some space that is personal to you. so my first question in reading alito and we can talk about the details we can set kind of set up a two-part test going forward that is a little arcane. it's brand-new in the law or it draws from our elements but the bigger question really i said to myself i think all of the abortion debate has been framed improperly around the rights of a woman. it's really about how much do we want to confine and constrain the power of the government? this goes to anything from the right to bear arms to the right to not be forcibly sterilized by government. that's not in the constitution and we're talking all about abortion rights in the constitution. there's a lot of stuff not in the constitution and the problem with this decision is the upotential cascade of implications for rights that we take for granted but if you understand why we have rights, widely call them right it's because most americans don'twant their freedoms, they don't want the government encroaching into the spaces .that's a different claim so if you think about it that way and not so much is it of the woman, is it the unborn child but is it about as americans how much power do we want to give government. the supreme court looks like it's poised to aggrandize the power of government and minimize the power of individuals and i don't think people across the political spectrum like that idea. >> it's a fascinating way that you talk about it because the decision would put the power with the states. the idea theoretically of less big government at the federal level much bigger influence at the state level which is fascinating if you're looking at conservative principles to. >> that also we talk about why do we have a federal government? because we had civil war as an example around certain states wanting to continue to in enslaved human beings for profit . we then had post-reconstruction commitments, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment . the 14th is where abortion rights and a lot of rights come from what happened there ? the southern state says we don't care what the constitution says, we're going to do what we want . 42 usc 1983 called the ku klux klan act to basically as we said at the beginning give people theright to get to go to court to get an order to tell the government to stop doing something . the fact that states have their own legislatures doesn't give it enough. if it were enough we wouldn't have a constitution. the framers understood its psychologically human nature to abuse and entrench their power and that's why we have to government ceup into different pieces. it's all about accountability and again in the book if you understand the why then you understand the various o implications you can noodle through these problems and get out of i'm right,you're wrong and that escalates and people get isolated . people feel judged. people feel shamed at once shame enters the picture the dialogue is over. >> i want to talk about the tribalism and will come back to that but if i picked up in this book initially and i thought all my parents are lawyers so they're going to be thrilled i'm reading it but when you think of how i think like a lawyer some people might wall them off to the idea that they need to because they don't work in politics or working all offer but really i think what i was struck by these pages was the fact that you say attacking it with this mindset can help you figure out anything from should my atkids have a social media account to the bigger lifequestions about what happens if i'm getting divorced ? when you make that turn to the personal it becomes so much more accessible and i wonder why you think it's important to make that turn ? >> all i want to do frankly and why i started doing this a few years ago was to take the law school classroom sophisticated graduate-level legal analysis and translate it into common sense every day language. the basic distinction i would say between how lawyers think and it's hard for my students to get this. the rest of us most of the time lawyers look for questions e. students come in and they want the answer. i'm not going to be sitting in your office when we've got the first problem and if you can wikipedia the answer who's going to pay you $500 an hour? you're hired because it's ambiguous. it's confused so lawyers are like bloodhounds look for the questions. and the answers only come later if at all. most of us are going to be on the supreme court. so lawyers have to deal with bad law. they have to tell their clients they can't get them what they want. the view in this in between phase and what we see on tv is there fighting for their clients. what we don't see are the weeks and months and sometimes years of work gathering facts, making sure they are viable. not because you're your going to jail but because it's makes for good journalism and you have professional ethics and it's the same for a lawyer. >> you make the point that ea lot of this is fact-finding and i think right now in this moment there is so much saturation online, on social media and along with that comes disinformation i. we've seen the real-life implications of that even on something like january 6. that you given this book some examples of legacy media organizations are the places where you should be going. you use on marty mcfly test if they were around then you should be looking at them now but i wonder what you think the impact of having all these different spaces for information are because on the one hand it's the maximization of media and on the other hand it makes it hard to find good facts. >> i think about when i grew up in buffalo new york one of my kids and we had a superduper encyclopedia where my mother bought enough groceries she'd get the next volume and that's where we all went . that waseverything . so the goal and if you really wanted to dig in you go to library and have to get the card catalog and go to the microfiche. go to the xerox machine and make a copy. finding the information was the challenge. was theskill . now it's the opposite. it's sorting the information. it's sorting it. it is not only overwhelming in terms of content that exponentially growing but computer algorithms based on our swipes and our clicks and our speech our thinking for us and feeding information into our phones that confirm perceived biases that we have. it's a completely different world where we need to learn and teach our children how to sort for good facts and what does that even mean? that's i think technology and i've said this for many years. the technology is vastly outpacing the law and it's also vastly outpacing how we problem solve. we talk about critical thinking skills. the five-part method is really that. it's okay, break it down into pieces identify your values, i'm sure will talk about that . it's as prices able to think about value systems. you talk about how to do it. analyze both sides because if you don't think of your closing arguments you're going to lose. you're going to lose. you have to know your opponents arguments as well as her own and critically tolerate the fact that you're not going to get everything. it's not black tand white, it's mostly gray and you have to tolerate thefact that you can't have it all and you've got to get stuff up . it's a team mentality. my team your team. and it's hurting your kids. so depression rates, anxiety, suicide. people are feeling alienated. they don't know how to communicate, they don't know how to bridge gaps and connect which is our human instinct e. i think people look at this title and say lawyers, all they want to do is fight. again is just the opposite. as part of the consumer for the sole. >> is taken to proposal with your one ounce wrapped in chile. i even grow up when you talk about both sides of it my parents told me you shouldn't ask questions you don't want to know the answer to unless you know what the answer is going to be and that comes from knowing where ilthe other side is coming from. the thing that's striking to me because i exist on the hill in a place that is regularly r versus d, red versus blue. you can predict the tribal lines on every issue as a form . and part of it feels like where not operating from the same set of facts anymore on a lot of these issues and i'm wondering how you wrap up this moment of perceived bias and the way that we can't really tolerate the other person's argument if it feels like you're not operating from the same foundation because the tribalism is just seeping in. how do you unwind allthat ? >> it started with a book on the constitution and i realized our democracy is all about voting which is not in he the constitution. there's no right to vote in the constitution then i realized it's deeper thanthat . our family democracy is something else and that's to answer your question i think we need to go back to shared common values as humanbeings . i think what we saw today or we're going to see with this stops decision is acrisis of compassion in our country . and when i just anecdotally ube someone dogmatic about trump, how powerful do wewant government to be ? nobody wants that. nobody wants government deciding how you raise your children. nobody wants government telling you what job you can have. whether you can enter into a contract or not. none of this is spelled out in the united states constitution. if we can connect around we're humans and we have this shared value system. set aside the republican or democrat and then build from that because once you do that then you have to start making compromises. i know it's alittle high in the sky but it's not going to be i mean, our political system is devastatingly broken . but i still have hope but the structures are going to save us and obviously the supreme court is not going to save us . the only way this shining beacon of democracy in america is going to survive is for people to communicate and connect with each other again . >> i think that the one step of the five steps that's the most is the tolerate piece of it because as i've been on the road traveling what i hear from everyone is that amazes me the most is people have stopped talking to their neighbors if they have differentpolitical opinions . i feel tthose are the exchanges that can help us grow as opposed to being introduced to other mindsets that are our own. >> that the concept of curiosity. i have a class during the first trump impeachment called democracy at risk and the students were anxious about talking about these things because they're worried. they might get canceled. it happens across the political spectrum so i say you're going to read the supreme court case but then i m want you to bring to class opinion editorials from legacy or respectful journalists that have different points of view on whatever the issue is. at the end of the semester they said it's the safer i ever felt to talk about heart issues and i scame to class curious about different points of view. i also think teachers though, in sort of thought leaders igneed to manage the conversation. like when people start going into dark areas. i'm right, you're wrong you have to bring them backto some common ground. there has to be leadership around that . so anyway, i think it's a ou really powerful thing that we've lost. and the book again we can take up to five steps you have thanksgiving, under mill uncle milton is really difficult. how do you make it through a couple of hours of difficult conversations? the book lays out a fivestep methodology . and for any of you who watch judge jackson's. you might t recall her being asked particularly by republicans over and over what your judicial philosophy and she wouldn't answer it. why? because there's no philosophy. it's not all black and white blessed philosophy. the president, the policy implications. the scope of my authority.i call it a framework but it's basically a decision tree for how do you move through something hard. it's a myth that there's one way to read the constitution. it's amyth that there's a one note judicial philosophy just like it's a myth that deciding whether to take the job, how to manage your divorce . deciding on whether to skip the elective surgery. these are easy black and white questions and politics is no different. >> i think that's a fantastic point and i want everyone in the audience, i could ask the question for 1 uymillion years and i have been if you guys are noodling on any i know there's going to be time for them. someone's going to bring a microphone around and someone can wave in the back when they want to start doing that because i'm sure you have questions as well. to me as i looked at the art of all the books you've done on the conversation on fx where do you think the next application of this goes? where is your mind headed next? >> you asked earlier sort of why i do this or what theidea is, what got me into this . really it's taking the law and relating it to people's everyday experiences. all i know what that's like. for example people ask me all the time can the president do that? the question is and not but it's anyone's fault. the question is if the president does that what the consequences? you know the speed limit is 35, the numbers not going to slow us all down. what slows us down is the machine hiding in the bushes and that horrible thing in the mail you get for 50 bucks . it's the consequences. that's an example of how using your common sense like experiences ties to these figurines. where is this going? hopefully starting conversations in this way, you bring it home and then it goes and it goes and we can start working against the dark forces and join hands again as people. and preserve what we've enjoyed for 230+ years and i have four daughters. i think it's worth saving but it's not goi