Skip to main content

tv   Book Discussion on Understanding Clarence Thomas  CSPAN  November 25, 2016 10:30pm-11:01pm EST

10:30 pm
10:31 pm
but. >> host: and every get the opportunity to go to college campus this to talk with professors who are authors today we're on uh campus of claremont california enjoined by professor ralph rossum who is author of the book "understanding clarence thomas" the jurisprudence of constitutional restoration" ralph rossum what in your view is the biggest
10:32 pm
misconception of clarence thomas? >> guest: that somehow he was the justice scalia the shoeshine boy that it was put after his confirmation he is his own man. i had a chance to f few years ago i a admire him enormously and in fact, they have asked me to do and after words for the book combined into a paperback edition. and thomas having done a book on him in his more profound and consistent and is a giant he is not as with
10:33 pm
teeth or sarcastic but he gives as. >> one of the things that he does is that each but he will assign a clark or to sell one he has the research looking at an enormously amount new cannot sell of the things that you want to say without leaving the superiors. and it will be 6880 pages in length and enormously well researched and his statement on that issue when the topic
10:34 pm
comes up to right pave brief will just reference the opinion in which she spilled >> is the consistent? >> very poor grow vice said i first but to compare and contrast but basically 3:00 p.m. persius to have all regional intent. >> so let's get letters of
10:35 pm
the convention of those that were extemporaneous.
10:36 pm
10:37 pm
>> >> a good example nobodies from the moral post to partial birth abortion and thomas but yet he wrote it opinion who said they have the power to pass the law using the commerce clause to regulate this question? he is very consistent teeseven how often did he
10:38 pm
and justice scalia vote the same question. >> about 87 percent of the time. for example, ginsberg and stevens on the liberal side. but the interesting thing is when they vote against each other. during those 27 years together on the court, 24 years, i have heard about 16 occasions one mw wrote the majority the other wrote the dissent that doesn't mean they're not other instances to give the majority opinion in seven yields did but the direct had gone was about 16 times teeseven was at the
10:39 pm
right-wing different question make it had a do with statutory construction and scalia wrote this book on statutory construction and thomas is willing to consider more resources is simply with the text says and does more willing to look at the legislative history that was the intent of congress when they passed the act rather than the word that they employed to achieve that would damage mean. personification they will quarrel on that but big issues almost never scalia wrote the majority opinion california passed a law that banned boff made it a criminal offense to seoul
10:40 pm
violent review teams about consent and you had to put a large every team on the packaging before that went into a fact that the entertainer merchants association challenged and scalia wrote the majority opinion to say the first amendment applies not simply to books and newspapers but the internet and movies and medium like video games. so he employed traditional strike action to strike it down but thomas said linda first amendment was written there were no free-speech rights. they were subject to whatever their parents at and he won from early education lied to show the whole argument that parental
10:41 pm
control is essential. so he writes a 40 page dissent:pistols exclusively with the meaning of the first amendment andy application up and tell about 1840. by and then focusing on the original general meaning approach but another instance or a case dealing with the first amendment in children was the case called morris against frederick he may yet again -- for about the bomb hits for jesus case in anchorage alaska, the winter olympics were about
10:42 pm
to begin in the olympic torch was carried through anchorage. the high-school allowed all of the kids to go out to watch the torchbearer as he was passing. a kid comes out of a huge banner to say bong hits hand and it kept saying i have free-speech rights. also those in tim wind but the soprano grace says that is protected speech. but he writes opinion to say
10:43 pm
not of principle especially not in evidence that being disruptive to the educational process. so a very interesting judge. >> host: why do you think he doesn't talk from the bench? the intent of a high a look in the book. so two years ago right here in in february there is a piece called thomas's of rages contact the fact he had not asked any questions and a year's eight years and then we got to the 10 year anniversary than yes to question a few weeks ago i
10:44 pm
was tapped to respond but what is so interesting is how congress prepares for the oral argument. every justice typically will have one of the clerks write a bench memo on a particular case that is about to be argued then he will go over the questions he should be asking whether the long term implications if we decide the of the way? m.i.t., is enormously well prepared. his view is a learned by listening not by talking.
10:45 pm
scalia has the big impact when he two waned the bench in 1986, often there could be prepared for questions asked in a half-hour. today it is about 50 questions per hour. >> putting these oppressions but he said all they seem to be doing is enjoying hector at the university and a half of school want.
10:46 pm
>> that is a complicated question. en before us we have the two attorneys that to the issue better than anyone else and i was really looking forward to learning from them but what did i get my colleagues wanting to show off how bright they were. >> what is interesting is until the death of scalia seniority is on the high bench but in the observance will be on the court he will
10:47 pm
and then one but if that is added to the cacophony the attorneys would have almost no time to talk. i dunno if i agree with thomas bond of quantity but more would allow them to better profess themselves. >> host: ralph rossum did justice thomas cooperate with your book? >> no he did not. i wrote and asked if i could interview him to clarify a few matters provide pointed out all of the common connections but he declined.
10:48 pm
so big it is complete subjected to be on this project. >> host: what is his reputation with his colleagues? >> he is well-liked. especially by his clerks. when hostage in an interview on harvard law school he was on the campus being interviewed by law students. she asked what he liked the least about his job as a justice on the court and he said lack of anonymity. in disaster when he liked the most about his job on the court and he said my kids.
10:49 pm
>> to take them only from the elite and thomas will take down a whole variety of places and had taken people and he has more women clerks and some of the other justices'. and at the beginning. >> key will have you watch dallas shrugged and he has a big diesel pressure mobile
10:50 pm
home and he takes them up to the battlefield than gettysburg and becomes very close to them. they have any you'll and monthly relations. so he gets along well with his colleagues. >> as a professor of american constitutional law at neck-and-neck college what to think about a lifetime appointments? >> justices have to tell a funny story justice scalia was on campus a few years ago i was asked to introduce him to a big group in orange county at the airport. there is about 700 people and the room and the college has an organization if you
10:51 pm
can contribute to thinks there is a group and but referring to that but the audience loved my answer and i wonder somebody said pacemaker. so i would walk over from the podium to get myself together then got back up there again. there were a number of west
10:52 pm
but in 1986 was five months short to complete his 30 years on the bench. there is something about eisenhower 1958. i'm sorry 56 is enormous length of time. he was born in the 19th century in here is said judge but i think it tender 15 year would make sense. at that point you could
10:53 pm
appoint somebody like the judge garland to with solar neely reason he is nominated right now is he and obama had a real shot plate thomas . sole point somebody who is older that allows him the full-service of an individual on the bench right now you have to go for young people for a generation to to make your mark with that current citizenry $0.1 to deal with the issue of cell phones. can the fbi or police upon arresting somebody search the contents of their cellphone? the court unanimously said no but with - - with the
10:54 pm
oral argument on what of them don't have a clue about modern technology with the use of cellphone sand all the features better on there. there was of a case that couple of terms ago that was concerning a case dealing with patent law with those that could circumvent the cable systems. it was clear that scalia had almost no sense of cable tv even though when he helped to write that act no real sense of contemporary technology would be nice to have judges could rotate who had a better sense of that practices but one of them things early on when they have by time tenure lifetime
10:55 pm
tenure through the twenties when the supreme court met and didn't make much they were riding carriages and horseback from courthouse to courthouse listening to the cases as a regular judge that and treated to enormous turnover so is an arduous way of life sereno justice stevens lived in florida and flop every two weeks for oral arguments. modern technology and modern medicine and it would have made them rethink wife time tenure. >> host: we have been talking with professor ralph rossum his book "understanding clarence thomas" booktv ab on location in claremont
10:56 pm
california. one >> the two branches are in in advance with each other all of the time when the president pushes congress and is sorry about taking it too far because been one
10:57 pm
big. >> is not possible to only talk about guns that is what counts people ought to dehumanize them than when their life is taken for that has already been accounted for? >> i think once you start saying the suggestion that there was a great if you would be worthy. >> often have you heard a politician talk about a brief paragraph specs you could remember a time when finding a good job meant
10:58 pm
showing up you did not always needed degree the competition arose limited to your neighborhoods if you worked hard you could have a job for life with a decent paycheck and the occasional promotion even the prize to work at the same company but that world has changed and for many it is painful. that happens to be president of ominous data of the union address that could be almost a politician in any party of this point with more emphasis on the cultural cohesion of the time they could have been a republican or a mitt romney or any candidate in the selection with more emphasis on equality it could've been clinton or warren with pour grammar or donald trump right now rolling back globalization of america is
10:59 pm
not what used to be that is the theme of contemporary american politics and speaks to a public anxiety that comes down to a question what has happened to our country? this isn't a bad question something big has happened and in less cartoon forms with that nostalgia is understandable the america that we miss so much as a nation that has emerged from the second world war gradually evolving from there was unified inclusive. . .
11:00 pm
economic opportunities to all kinds of workers and all kinds of skill levels. almost immediately after the war that consolidated nation started a long process of unwinding and fragmenting. it's important to recognize we don't think about the scale of its quite enough to. a low level of cultural diversity until the restrictions were lifted in the mid-1960s. in


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on