have, they are very sharp. i mean, their antenna is up and shivering all the time. you know? i mean, they're like little mind readers. they have to be, because they don't know the whole language, so they have to look at something else. i remember once my son when he was about 4 years old came into the room and had a picture he had drawn. and he said, mama, look at what i did. and he showed me this picture, and i was doing something, and i said, uh-huh, that's lovely. and he just tore it up right in front of my face. and i said what'd you do that for? and he said because you had that little smile on your face. you know, that little patronizing, oh, that's lovely. [laughter] and it was true. i was trying to get rid of him. yeah, yeah, oh, it's lovely, you know in and he recognized it and had the whatever it takes to tell me about it by just ripping
it up in front of my face. then on i realized that he knew certainly as much as i knew when i was a kid. you know? you remember how you had to really tell who was lying and who wasn't? that sort of thing. so because they had this kind of really sharp intelligence, i think parents can make enormous differences in what their -- how their children behave and learn in school. the photographs, huge boxes of them were sent to me some i knew that i wanted in the book, others were sent to me, and i just picked them out. and i picked them out suddenly when i knew probably what this guy was thinking, drinking out of that fountain or what that pair of women were thinking when
they were sitting at this soda fountain. you know, a little string over here, and you can't go here, you can't go there. so when that appealed to me, when the photograph appealed to me, then i was able to do it. and some the house itself, the editors themselves wanted me to comment on, some that i may not have chosen. more questions about the persistence of segregation, and i think i tried to comment as clearly as i could about the complexity of that. not wanting the necessity of doing numbers, 50% this and 50% that, but at the same time wanting choices to be available to groups. this question is a good ending
because it's about an ending, and it can end this session. "beloved" ended with the refrain, this is not a story to pads on. is "remember" a story to pass on? definitely. this is the story to pass on. thanks. [applause] >> to find out more, visit the publisher's web site, houghton mifflin books.com. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2. here's our prime time lineup for tonight. up next, lee edwards provides a history of the heritage foundation, a conservative think tank in washington d.c. at 7:30, david kirp presents his book "improbable scholars: the rebirth of a great american school system and a strategy for
america's schools." at 9, "after words" with martin clancy and tim o'brien, co-authors of "murder at the supreme court." they sent down with kimberly tigner of the national bar association. followed by ms. meyers at 10 p.m. eastern. and we conclude at 11 with -- [inaudible] her book "working with sharks" chronicles her experiences as a pakistani woman working at the united nations. that all happens next on c-span2's booktv. >> coming up, lee edwards presents a history of the conservative think tank the heritage foundation and profiles its founder, ed fuller in. the heritage foundation began in 1973, and it's based here in washington d.c. it has hundreds of thousands of members and an annual budget of $75 million.
>> well, good morning, dr. feulner. >> good morning. how are you? [laughter] >> isn't this great? [inaudible conversations] i think we had 11 people at our first presidents club meeting, and so we have come a long way, baby. [laughter] >> well, we're going to jump right into some asking questions and getting wonderful answers, and then we're going to open it up to you all, and you're going to flood us with questions as well. and leading the way, this wonderful book here -- yes, there will be a book signing a little bit, we're all authors, you know, irrepressible about selling their books. [laughter] so there will be a book signing i think at 5:30 or something like that this afternoon, and ed and i will both be there, be happy to sign it for you as many
times as you want. [laughter] >> well, not every page. [laughter] >> so in leading the way, i reveal that you almost didn't become heritage president. >> it's true. >> because of an author from the british philanthropist anthony fisher. what's all that about, and why did you decide to go with heritage? >> anthony fisher founded an organization called the institute for economic affairs in london. and some six years before heritage was even established, i was a graduate fellow at the london school of economics and had the opportunity to get to know what iea, the institute of economic affairs, was about and to work with its founders, ralph ferris, arthur sell done and the others. and i saw a think tank in action, and i saw how it could work. and later on, fast forward, i
was in washington. anthony fisher came through washington, looked me up and said, hey, want to start mini ieas around the world. we've got one that we think is going to be start anything sydney, australia -- greg lindsay, still a great friend, started his center out there. he said we want to do one both in new york and in washington, kind of two offices, two bases because both should really be covered, new york media, washington politics. and we talked about it very seriously. and it started developing. meantime, i was an outside director at heritage, and we had a meeting, if i recall, it was about december '76? november, december '76. and frank walton, who was then the president of heritage, reminded the board that he had
made a two-year commitment to come in as president of heritage and that he wanted to go back to coronado, california. >> can't blame him for that. >> well, not then. [laughter] too many people want to move into california these days, but this was meadly post-reagan -- immediately post-reagan. california's economy was booming, and it was wonderful. frank was going to leave, and he said, feulner, why would you want to start a new one when you've been involved with heritage since the first day? why don't you just take over heritage from frank and instead of moving your family to new york and all the rest that's involved. so that's kind of how it evolved. i think linda was happy that we didn't have to move, although she is a new yorker natively, and she'll give me hell for telling this inside story right -- >> well, i think everybody here today is happy you made that decision. >> and here we are.
>> stayed in washington d.c. [applause] >> the funny thing was, lee, and you recount this in the book, i know, anthony fisher's attorney was a very prominent new york attorney, 46th floor of the old pan am building, and his name was william j. casey. as in ronald reagan's head of the cia. and i'd actually gone up, met casey with anthony fisher, and can we were pretty close to signing on the dotted line. come five years later, six years later, i'm president of heritage. joe coors, our founder and i, go out, call on bill casey in his super secret office at the cia and ask bill casey if he'd make a major gift to heritage for our tenth anniversary. and bill casey looked very sternly at joe coors across the desk. well, i gave heritage the
biggest gift i'm ever going to give them, i let them fall out of a deal with me. [laughter] so kind of an interesting little side note there. >> so it's the spring of 1977, and you're taking over as president of the united -- well -- [laughter] well, you know, at that time probably in '77, that would have been a terrific idea. [laughter] >> yeah. considering jimmy carter. >> exactly. exactly. why? i mean, what was there about heritage? of course, you'd been working with us in the very beginning, as you say, as an outside director. but it was, basically, not that well known. it was a little bit on the friday friday of events that was going on in washington d.c. why? what was it about? >> i came directly from the saf of the house -- from the staff of the house of representatives, and weil wyrik who was the first
president of heritage who had been a senate staffer, we pote thought we knew what was -- we both thought we knew what was miss anything the washington mix. and that is short, timely, credible arguments from the conservative perspective that could get directly to the policymaker. everybody has plenty of books on their shelves that talked about, oh, free enterprise and how great it is ask and why the communists are bad and the rest of it. but when it came to how could you vote or how should you vote on a particular piece of legislation, that wasn't there. and the late bill raspberry, a very liberal columnist for "the washington post," once told me over lunch the neat thing about these heritage backgrounders is they're short, i know i can rely on the facts up front, you get to the last page that says conclusion, i rip that off and throw that away. [laughter] except bill raspberry every once in a while forgot to rip the
last page off, so he became very enthusiastic about some of our earlier policies like school choice and things like that. but we knew what the niche was in washington, lee. the question was, you've got to kind of a space here, and the whole space seems to be occupied. so how do you get a new institution and drive it in? >> right. >> to that space? >> yeah. and that seemed, i wouldn't say impossible, but very, very difficult. i mean, there were think tanks around. you had a comparatively modest budget. what was the reaction? what happened? in terms of people -- did they really begun using the backgrounders -- begin using the backgrounders and calling upon them and using them? >> at first, not much happened, to be very frank. and that's true not only in the earliest days of heritage, but also in the first post-feulner days of heritage. it took time to build up relationships with individual members of both the house and
senate. one of the things that we talked about and that jim demint has been talking about with our internal staff is the credibility of the research has to be absolute. there can't be bad numbers, or numbers can't be adjusted or fixed or something like that. because the minute you do that, you know your intellectual adversaries will catch you out, and you know that your friends will never be able to rely on you again. so we knew that was the very first base that had to be covered. then we had to start picking our issues carefully. and some of those early issues, i'll never forget there was one, there was to be an expansion of medicare proposed by senator ted kennedy. well, that should be reason enough to have opposed it. [laughter] but we looked at the numbers, and we said, hey, this isn't the $2 billion increase that they're saying it's going to be. it's really going to be much closer to $10 billion. oh, well, kennedy who had fairly
good friends in the congressional budget office said, well, we're going to send it over to congressional budget office. well, they did. the congressional budget office came back and said the number was, in fact, a little more than $10 billion. they justified our number, discredited kennedy's number, and that kind of said to people, well, maybe we can rely on these. and then, of course, mandate for leadership came along. if you will already told that story -- phil already told that story, and you tell it so well in the first paragraph. >> i know what really strikes me in writing about this mandate relationship was really a big gamble. fairly small, modest organization, budget and so forth, and you made a commitment to doing the mandate for leadership before reagan was nominated. >> yeah. >> let alone elected. that makes you, in my book, a pretty big risk taker, or what -- >> well, a couple of things happened there along the line. first of all, we had a great board of trustees. we had guys like william simon who had been secretary of the
treasury, secretary of energy and energy czar before that, and jack ec debtor who had been head of the general services administration. and they -- we were talking around the dinner table at one of our board dinners, and they said very simple question: if, in fact, you go in and take a high-level position in a new administration, and they're talking from practical experience, the first thing you've got too is you've got to -- got to do is, back then it was your wife, got to get your spouse down here and your kids down here, and you've got to get them settled into new schools, get a house, sell your old house, and you're worried about that on one side n. the meantime, you're going into your own new department, and the only people who you're hearing from are the people who are already there. and, obviously, they've got an interest in the status quo, was they want to -- because they want to keep doing what they've been doing all along. so all of a sudden you've been there for six months, and you're the cheerleader for the guys
"washington post" best seller list in january, always behind a preppy handbook. i never understood that. we never made number one. we were number two for quite a few weeks. [laughter] and the neat thing about it, if you go back and you look at it, it -- when we talked about, for example, norman, and this was all down by volunteers. we had, like, 3 # # 00 volunteers, getting volunteers motivated to work on something before the guy was nominated, let alone elected, this was pretty big, especially with an unknown think tank like we were, and it not only said here's what reagan's been talking about in terms of temper off tax cuts, here's how to do it, and here is how you have to restructure the department of treasury so that the current assistant secretary for tax policy is the
undersecretary because under secretary is higher level, and if he's the higher secretary, they chair the meetings, calls the meetings, sets the agenda, and he can then actually run it and make sure the right things happen. not only did that happen, and don, the treasury secretary, signed it as one of his first orders when he became secretary of the treasury, he appointed the guy who chaired the committee to be that new undersecretary. norman, and norman went in, wrote that 1981 bill that became law that gave us the first reagan tax cuts that phil talked about earlier. it was very much a practical handbook. the neat thing about it, recounting again, five years later, did it make a difference? darn right it made a difference. four or five years later on by 1984 #, there were, like, 40* other organizations doing kind of knockoffs of what mandate for leadership had been. we really did set the way.
>> well, when i interviewed the presidents of other think tanks in washington, d.c., biggies like brookings and aei and cais, and cato, our friendly competitor there in the libertarian land, i said what difference has the approach made? all the difference in the world. the brookings president said we now do what heritage first started, so harming really, and i say that in the book, changed the think tank culture of washington, d.c.. you know, to be on top. >> one of the neatest things as i say this, especially among all of you, 25-30 years ago when phil and i were just getting our feet wet here at heritage, there weren't 600,000 people in the united states who knew what a think tank was. now we have more than 600,000 people who voluntarily support us every year. that's incredible impact,
really. >> well, i'm glad you mentioned that, but there is no other think tank in washington or the world that has the base that the membership base which heritage had, is absolutely extraordinary giving you a financial independence in the editorial independence that no other think tank has, no corporation, no individual, no foundation can tell heritage what to do. >> there's occasions where individuals have come in saying won't you change views on this or that particular policy, and when he says no, they come along and say, well, there's your donation and walk out of the room. that happened with six-figure gifts. that's why, frankly, we're so proud, that, yes, we have a large budget, but just 5% of the budget comes from corporations.
the rest comes from basically individuals like all of you or foundations. it comes from real america, not the big guys in corporate america. we can call them the way we see them. >> we are getting wonderful questioning from you all out there, but before we do that, talk briefly about the management philosophy, and that's one of the questions which we have here, and you refer siewfn to -- so often to the three i's, what are they, and what difference have they made? >> yeah, again, one of the neat things that i believe is read a lot, try to communicate that to our children and grandchildren. think about the history of
ideas, and what ideas -- because ideas matter. richard weaver wrote a book in 1948 called "ideas have consequences," and they really do. that's the first of the three i's, the idea. the idea of freedom. the idea of the individual being able to climb the ladder of opportunity as high as her or his ability will take her, and that's the first of the three i's. the second one, obviously, is the individual. the individual who can both prom mull gait ideas or implement them. the idea, the individual might be a learned person like a milton friedman or a practical politician like a jim jordan who we'll hear from later on today, and the third i, the one that seems to be missing siewfn on
the conservative side is the institution. when phil was going through some of the thoughts that occurred with miss of defense, welfare reform, social security, all these issues, they are not one shot deals. these are issues that come and then they hang around washington, and you have to keep refining them, have to be reaching new add convinces, you have to be kind of reselling them all the time. you have to make the sale time after time, day after day, and that's why you need an institution. you can't did a one person blogging machine who kind of is on a treadmill saying the same thing over and over again. you have to have an institution that goes out, sells those good ideas. it's been seven years now since dick cheney, the vice president,
celebrated the 25th anniversary of reagan, 1983 strategic defense speech. it's now 32 year, and we just had obama say, yes, we have to beef up strategic defenses in the northwest part of the united states because it's north case in north korea. thirty-two years, we still don't have a fully deployed missile defense system. we talked about repealing the treaty with the soviet union because there's not been a union for nine years at that time, reason enough, but we still don't have a fully deployed missile defense system. 1981 went over, met with the ranking republicans in the house , bob, the minority leader, chaired the session, asking me, well, ed, you've done the mandate for leadership, now, what's your main project going on here in the new congress, and tell us how to work together,
and so i started talking about defense and john's vision for a hundred-ship navy who came down through the president's newly elected president reagan then in his inaugust rail -- inaugural address, and we taked about other things. i said we'll talk about social security reform. he said, at that point, ed, we don't talk about changing social security inside this building. [laughter] that was 1981. in 2005, we many a president, he was not successful, but had the guts to go around the country to say there's a problem with the program. it is not financially sol vent. it can't keep going the way it is. we have to do something about it, and my argument is without an institution, you b don't have the continuity to keep arguments
alive to keep reminding the american people year after year what fundamentally needs to be changed. that's the idea, the individual, the institution. >> you can see the drive and dynamism we have here in this guy hanging on to what was such a delight, such a delight to write the book and tell the story of ed. it is truly a remarken, remarkable story. it really is. ed, you mentioned the word "con -- "conservative" several times and the conservative movement so how intertwined are they, heritage, and what was part of the vision when you started with heritage in thinking about the conserve tifer -- conservative movement? >> yeah, again, going back to the early informative times, institute for economic affairs 234 london that dick allen
brought me here first at the center for strategic and international studies downtown here, and then out at the hoover institution when they went to hoover, so i had a fairly good idea of the really important think tanks around the country, and what seemed to me was if they are on our side and we can agree on something, let's celebrate, let's add and multiply, not divide and subtract. if we can bring people together and figure out where to strengthen each other in the arguments, put aside differences between a libertarian and a paleo conservative. say there's the 85% of what we agree on, push on that together. that led to the first diaper meeting in chicago which you're a former president, and there was different groups from around the country saying, hey, yeah,
figure out how to work effectively together. last year, bridge, who is probably here, tells the 35th annual resource bank meeting in colorado springs, had more than 600 people for 32 different countries like 325 ceos and different organizations get together for four days of conferencing, talk to each other, and lot of chatter about, hey, cooperate on this project or maybe we can work together over here in something where we agree. working together is not to knock down somebody else, but build up other urgeses and work together and be positive. you know this from the lectures, the seminars put on at heritage, from the times when a congressman or a staffer or congressional committee calls us and says we need somebody over here to testify on this
particular subject, and i'll call derek morgan or jim or one of the experts, and, well, we don't have anybody who does that, but, boy, out at hoover, they got a guy who's very, very good. call him up. we'll arrange for him to come in. he'll give a lecture for heritage, go over and testify, or maybe it's a professor at carnegie melon or texas a&m. bring them in. add and multiply and take those resources that are diffused around the country and make a difference in the policy arena, not just in terms of how they work out there beyond the beltway. >> we've always been concerned at heritage about young people, and one of the questions we have here is what advice do you have for young people, young leaders in the conservative movement. >> gosh, it is such an exciting time to be a conservative, to be able to communicate through all the new and different exciting
ways that young people can communicate now whether it's blogging, tweeting, whatever, but the first piece of advice i give them, and i do this every time when i meet with our incoming interns. our intern program is -- called our young leaders program because it's really more than the interns we have, 65 interns, three times a year, times the 30 # years we've been doing it, what's that come to? 6,000. >> i think so, yes, take your word for it. >> all right, whatever it is. [laughter] it's a lot of young people have come through our program. the first thing i tell them when i welcome them, give them some opening comments, go back and read some of the great people who have helped form the ideas, developed the ideas and formed the institution that you're now a part of, not just of heritage, but read about milton friedman an what the chicago school did in terms of converting economics
to the inevidentble slide towards socialism into real principled thinking that leads, basically, back to the market, and why the market matters. read about russell kirk in his emphasis on the roots of american order and what an ordered society means, why liberty has to be based on tradition and based on prudence, and then you'll see, all of the sudden that friedman is reend forcing this because friedman says, yes, we want freedom, but the fundamental question to map is, what do you do with that freedom? that's when he talks about ordered liberty. hayek's the same way. learn what the people say. we have volumes where we have just one chapter on each of the great thinkers of the 20th century, couple of them happen to be here with us. midge dexter is here right now,
one of the builders and collaborators of the conservative movement that strand together ideas. that's what i tell young people. the second one is, don't be discouraged. if you are around post-barry goldwater, and -- [laughter] you were, like i i was, just finished my -- well, finishing my mba. my parents were afraid i would drop out because i was getting so politically involved back in pennsylvania, and downtown philadelphia was not strong goldwater territory. [laughter] >> really? [laughter] >> but introducing barry goldwater at the university of pennsylvania with roberts, who even then, i think, was about 85. he passed at age 102, but robert was introducing him, and these two one brilliant professor, and i'm up there to introduce
goldwater, and kids in the third and fourth row threw tomatoes and eggs at us. that was not fun. [laughter] the young methamphetamine today -- people today who have rich history today and the political leaders and the institutional base, and you mentioned before some of the friendly competitors downtown like cato, aei, and others with whom we work americans for tax reform -- i'll leave somebody else but that's dangerous, but they were not there 40 years ago when we were youngsters and you were central to the goldwater camp. by the way, the sunday before election in 1964, the "philadelphia bulletin" called me saying you're the highest ranking goldwater volunteer we can find in eastern
pennsylvania, what's going to happen in philadelphia? [laughter] that's big stuff for 23 years old. [laughter] i said, well, if we lose philadelphia by less than a hundred thousand votes, barry will carry the state of pennsylvania. it probably was true. the problem was we lost philadelphia by 400,000 votes and lost the state by a million. [laughter] pennsylvania was not strong goldwater country, but my appointment is -- my point is that was -- that was tough politically back then. now, my gosh i basically good guys have got control of one-half of the congress, at least, basically good guys. they need reenforcing. we'll hear about that, but we're so much better off and stronger and the ideas of so much more main stream now than they were then, and the younger generation has to realize and appreciate how much luckier they are and build on that much bigger base
we've given them. >> well, looking back on the 36 years that you've been president of heritage at, can you single out, perhaps, something you're particularly proud of or most proud of? that was a question from several of the friends here today. >> wow. the policy side we talked about. >> right. >> certainly missile defense, rebuilding the pentagon. after all, go back to basics and the constitution, four and a half million copies distributed the constitution around the country. back to the constitution, the first thing the federal government's supposed to do is provide for the national defense. it's not to give preschool children warm milk at lunch, but to provide for the national defense. if you're going to do preschool
children meals or something, why do we have 17 programs that do that? do we decide along the line after 13 that we needed a 14th? hey, let's go back and look at some --nyway, i get off. number one. number two, welfare reform because welfare reform is not a case as we pointed out, but it's a time under bill clinton. it's not a case 69 welfare queens driving around in the cadillacs collecting checks. well form reform is a building block of reforming the basic unit of society, the family in saying, it is better to encourage families to stay together than flow the husband out so that the wife or mother can get bigger checks, and things like that we researched
back to chrls murray to what robert did subsequently and the rest. those policy issues, lee, that are still front and center in everything we do, what butler did with enterprise zones and privatization, on and on, but the biggest achievement, as far as i'm concerned, what we've done is harming is now a permanent institution in washington you can't talk about policy options on capitol hill or in app administration, even an administration like this without taking harming's -- heritage's view into consideration, the real legacy to celebrate now as we look at 40 years of harming. [applause] >> what about the future? what do you see in the future
for heritage? >> i see a great, great future for heritage. we had the great opportunity now over the last couple months to be out and around the country. we've been almost 20 cities together, meeting with heritage members and many of you have been with us in some of the cities around the country. talking and getting your input about where heritage should be going, but steady as she goes. heritage is built a -- not only a national constituency, but a broad base of support among policymakers not only here in washington, but in the state capitol around the country as well. that's why we've got bob mcdonald from richmond and paul coming from maine and tom coming in from pennsylvania today, three great governors
facing different sets of challenges. our son, daughter-in-law, and two granddaughters live in pennsylvania. you know, the biggest challenge in pennsylvania right now is whether the government's going to be the largest buyer of alcohol in the world today. the government of pennsylvania buys more alcohol than any other single entity anywhere because there's a state monopoly of abc stores. if you buy anything in pennsylvania, you do it there. the question that the republican dominated state legislature is facing is that good or bad? >> my gosh. >> that's a no-brainer, i think, to most of us, but it's a big issue up there, and the governor's got the guts to push ahead on it. in the meantime, again, so excited and end thursday yays tick about the federal system, that they have been encouraging fracking.
shale goes right up from pennsylvania up into new york, and, boy, they've been end couraging it to happen, and you go into pennsylvania, and you see new development coming. after all, that's where the oil industry in the united states started, in pennsylvania, and they're encouraging it. you get to the state line with new york, got andrew cuomo and legislators up in albany, blaming this on jim demint. he said it's like the difference between south korea and north korea. [laughter] you go to the state line between pennsylvania and new york, pennsylvania's thriving and new york's depressed because they won't let them do anything there. the geology's the same underground. you know, so we got these great chances now with the federal system that, you know, that's what we are all about as a country, not every good idea's invented in washington.
in fact, few of them are. [laughter] look out there beyond the capitol beltway and learn from each other again. >> well, ed, you led the way in so many ways as we've been talking about here this morning and building heritage as this permanent institution in helping to build the conservative movement and to this vital force, major force in american politics, and changing think tank culture here, not only here, but i think it can be said across the country, and even the world, so i think the question which so many people here would like to have you address, and that is what's next for you? [laughter] >> well, the neatest thing, and the first thing i want to say is thanks to jim demint, board of trustees, they asked me to stay on. i'll be having an office in pennsylvania avenue, building on the other side of capitol hill, be there about 20% of the time, and be doing whatever i can to
help preserve and advance the conservative movement that way. in the meantime, i'm looking at other opportunities to really sell our message around the world, around the country wherever i can, and as you know, lee, there's a lot of organizations around in our conservative movement like the philadelphia society that's going to be celebrating its 50th anniversary a year from now. you know, again, go back to the roots of the conservative movement. you were around shortly after, but at the moment, i'm the only one around at that first meeting in new york city in november 1964, the first time bill buckley met friedman, don and frank meyer were there, i'm the only one of the five who left, but, anyway, that's what we started the philadelphia society. next year, we have our 50 #th
anniversary, and that's exciting because what that does is bring together a lot of the leaders, both of institutions and a lot of leading intellectuals from all around the country for that annual meeting and that annual gathering. there's a lot of things in terms of promoting our ideas and building the conservative movement that i look forward to doing, and i can say this since linda's here. thanks to linda for putting up with this for 44 years with me, but reminds me, still, she married me for better or for worse, but not for lunch. [laughter] she, you know, i'll be active and around. i don't play golf either. [laughter] i got a lot of opportunity. >> well, heritage, the conservative movement, and truly said, ed, that america is so very, very blessed to have have you as the past and present leader and absolutely certain as
a future leader in all these areas. thank you so very much for being here. >> thank you. [applause] >> it's been great. [applause] for more information on the heritage foundation, visit heritage.org. >> like to think an it's important book in the sense it tells you how the court works. there's so few good books out there that explain what's the process? how do they go about this? how do they decide these cases? what are they saying to one another? we see cases splitting courts 5 #-4. what do you think? do the personal feelings get into it. it's a book not just about capital punishment, but a book about how the court operates. >> host: when you dig into the notes of the library of congress, the meme rap dumb, the notes back and forth between justices that available and a lot of stuff is available, you