my view is the greatest of our institution. this is not been fully appreciated by most otherwise well-informed americans. what did you mean by that? >> i meant by that that the polls show that when the court is seen as partisan, when thepol justices are seen as voting along political lines, there is less confidence in their decision and the public at large doesn't accept the decision in the supreme court, as hamilton pointed out doesn't have an army or any money so it's power comes from the public acceptance oftht its decision. a not that we have to agree with them, but we have to agree and accept that there is a rule of law and they are the final word on the constitution. >> we are talking with james, the author of supremely partisan, how politics tips the scales. new yor his also a former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york where he served in the criminal division. the supreme court, has it always been partisan, is this something new? >> it has never been so partisan in my view as it has been lately and of course it's always been partisan because of the way the late justice scalia pointed out. what was interesting was you go back to some of the great justices, they often join together and their views become the law and it was not polarized along partisan lines but rather based on their shared view of the law.n >> our viewers can join this conversation about partisanship and the supreme court with james byron. democrats can call (202)748-8000. p [inaudible] the gallup poll recently took a look look at what americans think the supreme court is doing, whether they approve or disapprove. currently 52% of americans disapprove of the job the supreme court is doing compared to only 42% that approve. the approval rating has been 2 down since about 2010 since then we know the court has issued some big controversial rulings. how have those rulings affected the public's confidence in the court? gay marriag >> i think it all depends on the action, you take the gay marriage case which i happen to believe that the court was not applying the constitution because neither marriage nor gay marriage was in the constitutioe as chief justice roberts said, it was a great victory for gay rights if you support gay rights, but hardly a victory for the constitution. >> we have oscar calling in from virginia. you are on with james byron. >> good morning everyone. >> good morning how are you. >> fine. i called because i wanted to get your thoughts on the mandatory minimums, i follow clinton and voted for hillary in the primaries when obama was running i wanted to know, the mandatory minimums, what are your thoughtf >> as a general matter, i don't approve of mandatory minimums. because of mandatory minimum, sentences, prisons are overcrowded and many have argued because they haven't passed whether their cruel and unusual punishments. it's something for the congress to consider and i would support an effort to leave sentencing to our child trial judges..s. they're talking about how the next president could shape the u.s. supreme court. it says a victory by hillary clinton not only would break the glass ceiling at the white house but shake the foundations of the quartz marble palace leading to its first liberal majority since the vietnam era. donald trump selection would continue to perhaps, or even advanced conservative control for decades to come though the change in personnel could happee fast beyond the late justice scalia, three other justices are 78 - 83 years old. the ideological shift may take years to play out particularly in areas of law that has been relatively stable for decades. they predict repercussions from the 2016 elections will grow insignificant over time. you agree this is monumental? >> i agree that they are at the crossroads. we know we have one vacancy that has been filled with a moderatee and extraordinary capability and experience and has been blockedr on the experience which further po contributes and i agree with mike pence, whoever is elected president is going to influence the direction of the court fory. at least three decades to come. >> up next we have darren coming in from washington d.c. on our independent line. you're on with james byron. >> caller: good morningt: everybody. >> good morning. >> caller: i'm a regular caller. i call every 45 days days or so because i love cspan and i love being able to express my views and hear regular views from around the country, unfiltered. i just really appreciate it. with that, i think the view that the supreme court is becoming more partisan, i think it's a reflection on politician, democrat and republican, especially in the last, reallyat since 2000 with bush two and gore, since then partisanship has ramped up with the house of representatives and the senateen and i think the justices have been relatively the same as they spend forever but because of the partisanship and the arguing and the unconstructive dialogue between the two parties over the past 15 - 20 years, it shows the supreme court. >> host: let's let jim respond to that. do think the politics have affected the court? >> without question. isaac was will rogers who said the supreme court follows the election return, but the fact of the matter is we are seeing a deeply polarized nation. people are polarized on a number of issues, media is polarized, think tanks are polarized, the congress is certainly polarized so it should not come to a great a great surprise that thens supreme court is polarized. it's not that ruth bader ginsburg, every time she votes things how would bill clinton like me to vote on this issue, it's just just that she has shared a certain ideology withss bill clinton and was appointed as somebody who shared that ideology and she's entitled to her opinion. you could see the same thing of scalia who was appointed in 1986, confirmed by unanimous senate and was perhaps the most partisan of the justice and the leader of the conservative wing. his death was a dagger to the heart and that's why his success and identity is so controversial. >> let's take a look at another excerpt from your book. you say modern presidents have flavored their appointments as part of the need to accomplishhs balance. the result is that they haveol become more rather than less polarized and deeply divided and less conservative. explain how the desire to seek talents is made this more point of your view. >> i think the appointments have been flavored with what i call identity politics and what's so interesting as we have had hundred and 12 justices of the supreme court in our history 89 have been white anglo-saxon males and at the moment prior to scalia's death we had six catholics on the court, three jews, three women, one african-american and the appointments really reflect thed tradition that are ethnically flavored and gender flavored politics. for a time not many people know this but we had a catholic seat for a time in our history we had a jewish the and we found, we t found that as of the time scalia died there was not a single white anglo protestant or evangelical on the court, even though white anglo-saxon protestant males gave us brown versus board of education and roe v wade and they still voted with the majority.ts >> of next. >> hey, i want to get right to it. i've been voting democrat but my heart is republican because the bipartisanship in the supreme court, it's based on transformation. so america has lost its faith in itself and everything changes based on your contracts between individual races. treatment partisanship is based on transforming america into what it is supposed to be and somehow we have lost that. i think if we want to be bipartisan, we have to gain face back into what we need to do and transform the things that we need more people need to be able to survive like healthcare. >> let's let jim respond. >> i don't know quite what theff question was, but i do agree that we need to make an effort in all our institutions to be more bipartisan and more moderate and reach some consensus as to the way forward. otherwise it's hurting us around the world. we've talked about iran and how difficult it is to deal with them because there's the modernist and the hard-line. they look at us and say how hard it is to deal with america because we have the moderates tearthe hard-line which isis congress and some of the presidential candidates want too tear up the treaty. >> in today's new york times there was a piece that talked about how hillary clinton and donald trump's nominee could shape the court. there's a new study where they take mayor garland and the candidates and they would fit in the ideological spectrum compared to the current justices, it shows they are ideologically from clearance thomas, the most conservative all the way down ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor your the most liberal, most of the nominees put forth to the more conservative and moreco centrist areas of the court and by contrast hillary clinton seem to be at or more on the liberal side. to think that does or should make a difference to voters orns those being considered by clinton seem to be largely liberal. >> frankly i was very much surprised in the debates that neither lester holt or any of the candidates brought up the supreme court. i assume it will be discussed in the second debate and in the third debate, if it takes place. trump's list of 21 candidates, interestingly enough it ignored it in judge cavanaugh from the d.c. circuit and there's only one explanation for that because it's a highly qualified and competent judge. i think the reason he wasn't mentioned is because they're going to go democratic from every poll that has come out. the judges that he did pick as possible nominees come from the swing state that he thinks he needs to get elected. t that further contributes to his judges all on his select list from which he says he might appoint the next justice.. hillary clinton has been a little bit cagey because she hasn't said she would support io mayor garland in the event that she is elected and in the event he is not confirmed in the lame-duck section. more whether she would choose someone more liberal than garland or if there were three more vacancies, occasioned by the long service of ruth bader ginsburg and steven breyer and anthony kennedy and she has to fill those, whether she would fill them or look for people with: experience. >> you are talking about geography a little bit. five of the eight justices hailed, do you think geographic diversity is important. >> i think it's desirablee because all of them come from the east coast or the west coas. and spent his professional life in washington. >> he grew up in indiana. >> when scalia was around, four of the five suburbs of manhattan were represented and they think geographical diversity is desirable. i think all kinds of diversity is desirable. i think we have to consider that and not try to have the kind of identity politics that we've seen in the past. >> up next on our independent line we have john calling in. you're on with james byron. >> caller: this is what i think should be done. there should be constitutional scholars that come up with a test about the constitution, you take a judge from every state, you put them in the room, they take a test, they pass it and you've got eight supreme court judges for eight years and you do it again after eight years and instead of being political, a good example of political is affordable healthcare and if that's legal, why does and the government say everybody's got to have a drivers license even though you don't drive. i think it would be better to be based on the constitution and not passing laws because of favoritism. >> a lot of times it is based on the constitution because the constitution says the president appoints the justices.it it does not say what criteria t the judge should use and it aloe doesn't require they be a lawyer some of our greatest appointees like felix frankfurter and others whose power had been appointed directly from the bar. they weren't judges. the president can use any criteria he or she wants to usep you and i might agree what the criteria might be but that's not what the constitution says. >> up next we have a caller from our republican line. >> caller: i'm so glad to get a chance to talk to you because this is a subject that has interested me for the last two years and i have a question at the end after i make my statement. the forefathers came here from england and these guys came in with their bibles and their carranza. what they did, they set up their old system and whatever the system was, i don't even want to talk about hillary clinton and donald trump. when they came here they set up this constitution and put the bill of rights in front of it people use the bill of rights and get mixed up with the constitution. >> host: what's your question. >> caller: my question is, if you look at the amendments of the constitution when you think about religious oppression, was their intention to set up a religious society based on surreal law? >> i don't think they considered whether society is based on surreal law, it was post be based on the constitution and the bill of rights is part of the constitution. the amendments to the constitution become part of the constitution and you start with the first amendment which guarantees the free exercise of religion so muslims are entitled to exercise their religion the same way anybody else is and also, the government cannot prefer one religion to another and that's the establishment cause which has been interpreted to prohibit or establish a division between church and state. were not like england where supre's a church of england. >> a lot has been said about activism on the supreme court. here's another excerpt from your book. it has been fashionable to think of liberals as judicial activists. the justices on both sides of the debate are often inconsistent in the approach and result. can you explain that. >> you take the controversy over the right to bear arms, the tacond amendment, the scalia approach and give effect to every word of the text. the second amendment has a preamble and an introductionthin that says you have the right to bear arms within the context. they ignored that clause and gave it no effect at all and said you can have a gun in your home. that's an example of the strict constructionist being activists. there are many examples of the activists liberal wing in the citizens united case where they saw no first amendment free-speech barrier to the c congress regulating the campaign contribution by the corporation, both an amount and other restrictions. >> up next we have mary calling in from west haven connecticut. you are on with james byron. >> caller: thank you for taking my call.ll my concern, i hope you will. >> guest: both of these concerns. i think citizens united has opened up the vast amount of money that we don't know where the money is coming from and yet it is impacting, influencing people's vote in our country. another decision was the shelby decision which dismantled the election of 1965 and i wondered if you would. >> guest: those. >> guest: i think they are both examples of conservatives being activists and liberals being strict constructionist because if you take the shelby countyvog case in which they dismantled the voting rights act, they completely rode roughshod over findings painstakingly made by s congress that they were bad c actor states that were denying african-americans of their suffrage in certain states and the justice department had to scrutinize those dates very carefully to make sure there was no determination. what co the liberals said they would here to what congress hadse decided in the conservative said they would make their own findings and overturn what congress had decided. citizens united, the conservatives felt that the contribution of money is a form of speech. that requires something of a wo stretch because i don't think the founding fathers would've ever thought of political contribution was a form of prott speech but since it was it was protected and therefore was unconstitutional for congress to try to regulate campaign contributions. i think the results in both cases are undesirable, they were 5 - poor decisions and they were decide along party lines. >> to think the increase in focus were decisions most supreme court cases have come out, do think that has driven the partisanship you've seen on the court? >> i think chief justice roberts who is a model of chief justice, although i don't always agreee with them has been quite correct the playing out unfavorable decisions that are split and he would like to see narrower decisions that everyone could buy into and he hasn't really achieved his purpose in most cases. >> host: we have built calling in from pittsburgh. >> caller: good morning. how are you.ou i'm doing very well but ofto course listening to c-span in the program, i'm a little more upset than i usually am. i am really impressed by the fact that were dealing with your view which is extremely partisa about the supreme court and i'm calling to object seriously to the accusations of division within the court as liberal and conservative. we just touched on the a bit. the question has always been, at what stages or what point the supreme court should speak and where should exercise restraint and allow the political system to enter the liberal approachota which has been to expand the equal protection clause, commerce clause and several others to the point where there is nothing the supreme court can't be what deal with. i find that is the basis of the argument on the court. what has become scandalously politicized is the choice, the selection of supreme court justices. >> host: let's give him a chance to respond to that. >> guest: liberal and conservatives are labels and i use them for convenience because they're popularly used. they use media and the use dollars of the supreme court. generally speaking, liberals are justices appointed by republican presidents, there are surprisesy because there have been justices in the past appointed by republican presidents who have taken in moderate or liberal positions and sided with the court and we've certainly had fd them appointed by eisenhower and he said it was the two worst mistakes and became very liberal justices and found new rights in the constitution. we had people like potter stewart appointed by republicans who took moderate positions. they surprised jake george hw bush and moved much more to the senate on the abortion issue especially so these are not hard and fast distinctions but was so interesting as someone gets on the court and they completely change their ideology and stance. i think the most notable examplo is hugo black which is a membera of the ku klux klan because he was a senator from alabama and he became one of the most liberal justices. roosevelt wanted to award them for their support in the 1936 election. >> you are talking with james tt byron the author of supremely bipartisan. he is a host of conversations in the digital age which can be seen weekly throughout newark's metropolitan area on cuny tv. up next we have david calling in from mount sterling kentucky on our democratic line. good morning.e. >> good morning, i appreciateme you being on. , i want to make, i meant that it catered christian. i'm a democrat and a hillary supporter, but what i'm calling about is not my issue with republicans but from 1935 - 1965 when the democrats got social security and medicare, the question i'm wanting to comment is that you go to church and the preacher gets up and says they took god out of our schools and all that.n i do know a lady down south filed a court decision and i went to the supreme court and i do agree that the supreme court has the say over all other courts. i would like to comment that i agree with the supreme court when the lady filed suit about taking them out of school and gay rights and all. we are all created equal and that's what the bible says. >> host: let's give jim a chance to respond to that, the the issue of religion and schools. >> guest: we don't necessarily have to agree with the supreme court decisions. they have the last word on the constitution and as justice jackson said, were not final because were infallible, were infallible because were not final period it is believed by o many that the supreme court is anti-christian, they want to take god out of the schools for they don't like it if there's a compulsory larry pledge of allegiance, but these are all reasons that they've arrived at and we entrust these individuals to decide these. i don't always agree with the court's religion decision but one recently called count of grief which i strongly disagreed with and christian prayers were said at public meetings to introduce the meeting, they divided sharply on that one, bu. nonetheless i accept the decisions and i also recognizey that the process by which they arrive at it is a judicialdent. process where they respect precedence and analyze precedents and judges do make a rule but they make it different from the way congress makes the law. >> host: we have joe calling in from maryland on our republicann line. >> caller: i just like to say i think the constitution was written to be upheld the way it is written. and i have a very big problem with versus roe versus wade and the fact that it has become a form of birth control, ten or 12 pregnancies over a lifetime that are terminated is ridiculous. i just don't get it. a thank you.ted as it's >> i agree with you that the constitution was made to be interpreted as it's written and i think one of the great contributions of the late justice scalia was that he reminded his colleagues that they must be lawyers and start with the text. often because the constitution is written in generalities, the text does not give you the answer. where the constitution talks pre about due process of law our equal protection of the law, those words words as lofty as they may be, don't really provide the answers. you have to look at the original understanding and you have to look beyond that because a lot of things have happens in 1789. we have gps, we have dna testing , we have the internet, we have video games, it's a very different technological society and we have to trust the judges to analyze the values that are expressed in constitution are to be translated into a contemporary society. >> host: we have richard calling in from virginia.tv >> caller: i was pleasantly surprised when i turned on the tv today and saw the title of your book. i am really shocked at how little criticism the court gets for so many outrageous things and i will give you two examples and then i would love to hear your comment. first of all, justice thomas, tw ran around the country talking against obamacare and then votes exactly the way his wife wants him to. that's a perfect example of a judges vote being bought and paid for. and then secondly bloodied bush v gore. there would have been no iraq war. every penny spent in iraq, every drop of blood of americans and iraqis and our allies are on the head of those justices.et >> host: let's let him respond to that. >> guest: i don't know where to begin exactly, i agree that bus5 v gore was a partisan decision, but later on the new york timesr recounted the vote throughout the state of florida and bushin would have won the state of florida if they had allowed it to continue. i don't think it would have changed the outcome as scalia argued later if they had decided the other way. i don't think the justice should pick the president. that's not what was intended, i think that was an unfortunate decision of the court. as to the ethics of justice thomas whom i have a great deal of respect for, the supreme court unfortunately is not bound by the canons of judicial ethics all the other federal judges is bound to that but the supreme court is not.ade i think the activities of thomas's wife are unfortunate because they give ground to the very criticism we have made. >> host: we have dave calling in from jacksonville florida on our independent line. y >> caller: it's really great to see somebody with your intelligence and non- bias plurality on here to discuss a subject like this. my studies, i believe the fathers in the constitution meant for it to be indoor in that it just wasn't a status document, it was meant to be interpreted to fit the times. along those lines, are we still betwng the madison jeffersonon push and pull? >> guest: i think that's right, jefferson was not involved in the drafting of the constitution. he was in europe at the time. te i think the problem that they face was they had to get a government in drafting the constitution and there were many issues of race that would have to be left for a later day if they were going to get a constitution at all. that is why we had to wait until 1868 for the equal protection clause and we probably had to wait until 1954 to see the full exposition of what it would mean. >> host: we have connie calling in from new jersey on our democratic line. >> caller: good morning, my question is when i became a citizen i had to study a lot to apply for citizenship. i understood from the constitution,. [inaudible] they were there to interpret the law no matter who and another thing is thomas and alito.s [inaudible] why we have this fight about why we going to put in. [inaudible] co >> host: we only have a few seconds left and i want to give him a chance to respond. >> guest: we have to interpret the constitution as it's written. i think we have to agree that it there are bringing their life experience and interpretation into the constitution. you look at constitution where we hang people for horse stealing at the time of the constitution. if you kissed your wife in i public on sunday they put you in the for 30 days. as is that cruel and unusual punishment? it wasn't then but it certainly is now.t while as i think that while as much ases they hated it, constitution is is a living document and to some degree justices have to breathe into it the experience of modern life and contemporary society which is exactly what holmes set a judge should do when the scalting the law. >> host: we have the author of supremely partisan, how raw politics the scale and the u.s. supreme court. thank you so much for joining us this morning to thank you, i really enjoyed it. >> here's a look at some of the books barred from the national public library. the life-changing magic of tidying up. she is followed by the late numeral surgeon who contemplates his mortality in when draft becomes air. they discuss america's defeat of japan in killing the rising sun. national book award winners gives his thought on the current state of black america in between the world and me. i look at this week's most borrowed books at the nashville public library continues with cnn host anderson cooper and his mother gloria vanderbilt's memoir called the rainbow comes and goes. that's followed by dave ramsey, the total money makeover. : >> the southern festival of books this weekend. >> c-span, created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service service by your cable or satellite provider. >> afterwards is next on book to be. university professor sarah golder clap discusses her book, paying the price on her higher education. >> good afternoon sarah, how are are you today speech i'm good, thank you for having me here one i'm so excited, i love your book, paying the price. it was a book that is so full of important data and very complex data about the implications of financial aid and income and been able to graduate college. but it was so readable. >> guest: thank you. that was the goal. >> can i read from the book. it is is intended to be a wake-up call, brings the lives of students front and center and avails their financial struggles. ensuring the american public has a clear sense of how and why financial aid is appealing to get students to graduation. this will help us find effective solutions. what drove you to do this