Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  December 30, 2013 2:00pm-4:01pm EST

2:00 pm
run into trouble. >> what else are you looking out it is clearly on the supply side and not the demand. we want more buyers to come in because that is helping to build the middle class. they are bringing new home housing starts to the economy. it isnstruction alone, very difficult, and we hope the lending begins to open up. is the website. our guest has been lawrence yun economist and vice president of the organization. thank you very much. >> on the next washington journal, author and pulitzer prize winning author hendrik -- hedrick smith discusses the top stories of 2013. phone calls and comments on what you think is
2:01 pm
the top news story of the year peter and your e-mails -- of the year. and your e-mails and tweets. earlier this month, a makeover spoke aboutum a -- women in congress and why they believe there should be more. held by politico, this is half an hour. >> good morning, i'm a senior political reporter and i am delighted to be joined to my colleague who is our senior washington correspondent and an esteemed group of women who example five the topic of our conversation, the peacemakers. with us this morning we have a democratic congresswoman from hawaii, democratic senator from minnesota, a republican congresswoman from florida and a
2:02 pm
republican from missouri. do not forget to tweet questions and comments using #women inrule. thank you for joining us for this conversation. >> we want to start the conversation with you senator, there has been talk about how ,omen in the senate get along bipartisan, they have dinners. how well do you know these women? >> we are really good friends. when people talk about how, in the days of old, people used to work together, that is how we do. there are 20 women. we used to be 16, which was unfortunate because they referred to us as sweet 16. [laughter] we made united states history when there was a traffic jam in the united states senate women's bathroom. [laughter] and it probably came to light most recently with the shutdown
2:03 pm
where we had half of the women in the group of 14 that actually pushed the leadership on a deal, framework to resolve that. they were women. it was half republicans, including kelly ayotte and lisa mikulski and myself and senator high camp. we worked together and it made a very big difference. the trust that we have is genuine. we get together for dinner every other month. at my house, we had a minnesota potluck dinner. before that was senator mikulski and her husband actually fixed the salmon and froze it and sent it to her. we allow the meant to be hunter gatherers. [laughter]
2:04 pm
>> great. i would like to ask all three congresswoman -- have you seen this spirit that the senator is talking about? we haven't heard about it has leading to the house as much here and has there been an effort to translate it to the other chamber and what kind of partnerships have been formed? >> recently have in the freshman class. we just had a great dinner this week with the freshman members from the democrat side of the aisle and the republicans. i won't tell you how many bottles of wine we went through. [laughter] and what we talked about was coming together and getting things done. women are born networkers. they are born communicators. we are multitaskers. we are solution oriented and i think there are lots of opportunities for us to come together and make things happen. that is why i came to congress.
2:05 pm
i am somewhat discouraged with the level of dysfunction, to be perfectly honest. we can be vehicles of change in moving the ball forward on behalf of our constituents and the country. that is what we want to be a part of. >> i'm an old timer. i've been here longer than many of you have even been alive here . [laughter] we used to have these large dinners. if they are going on, maybe i am not invited anymore. they were every month and they were really very good. they were wonderful dinners and we got to discuss whatever legislation we were working on, trying to get more cosponsors for our bills because we all have power groups from our own party. but it is hard to get bipartisan support because we are always meeting as political parties. so we have more french up within
2:06 pm
our own party. so these get-togethers were really a great opportunity to move our legislation along. and they were very helpful. i need to check my schedule and make sure that i am on that dance card. >> you are the newest of everybody sitting up here. does anything surprise you? >> what has been unique about our class that was just elected is the recognition in a very uncoordinated way that we were here to get things done and get results. in the best way to do that was to work together. what we found after being here for a few months and coming back from town hall meetings and district visits and kind of exchanging stories was that the message we were delivering back home are exactly the same. even in spite of the dysfunction, even in spite of
2:07 pm
the frustration that was there, the hope that we have for going forward is the fact that we have enough people of like minds who are interested in working together and building those relationships from the very beginning that have allowed us to do that. on the more fun side, i got to know a leader in the women's softball game. amy was our mc for the game. >> i was cheering alongside with a torn rotator cuff. but i was there. >> but we learned a lot about each other as people and our families and it was a great time to build camaraderie and establish a a lot of friendship that have blossomed into other things. >> and i know all of their r.b.i.'s. [laughter] >> a little more seriously, republicans have had issues in terms of having the same kind of numbers in congress.
2:08 pm
can you talk about the recruiting efforts? >> that is an absolute passion of mine. there are 19 republican women in congress. we have a conference of 232. it is a failure. and one absolutely must be addressed. i look out and i see susan molinari and i see susan comstock and i have worked for a long time with getting women involved in politics and we are doing this now. i am working with the and icc. reaching out to women, talking to that 37-year-old mother of two who is try to make it to the 15th or the 28th of the month. of the 40 to 50 key competitive races that we are looking at as a committee right now, over half
2:09 pm
of them has fielded a woman candidate. we are working with them and doing real recruitment, not just mentoring of women that will enter the race. going out and finding that teacher, that military that, -- military vet, that small business owner, the leader who wants to step up and be a part of the process. we are working very hard on this along with many of my colleagues and members. it is a true passion of mine. i hope that we can't up those numbers in the next congress. >> a follow-up to that. a lot of talk since the last election about how republicans don't reach women. can you go into a little more depth what you hear back and what kind of feedback there is? >> i get so aggravated. women, you all, we are not a coalition. we are 54% of the electorate. we rule during truth -- we rule. we decide the elections going
2:10 pm
forward. we decided a lot of things. we are the ones who are balancing family and personal budgets. we are the ones making most of the spending decisions. we are on the frontlines of health care. you talk to any medical provider, they will tell you. you are talking to a daughter or daughter-in-law. we are involved in energy policy. we know what it means here and it is time that we step up. we are all involved in this to change public policy. we don't do that unless we are in power. i am tired of others and there are politicians across this country that are making a decision on your behalf everything will day. the involved as a voter, as a participant, as an activist, but also as someone who will run for office. >> if i could follow-up on this, just to get the sense especially
2:11 pm
given the partisan divide and the gridlock, and i've seen all of the complaints from your constituents -- what is the number one complaint that you hear from women constituents that they would like to see dealt with directly in congress? >> they are all interested in jobs and security in the next generation. i don't believe in women's issues. there are issues that women have a great interest in and are involved then at all levels. and it has to do with jobs, the economy, safety, security, the future of our families and our nation. they want to make their lives a little bit easier. let's face it. there are women across america who are just trying to make those tennis shoes last another six months longer than they have to. we have to make their lives easier, better, and more functioning.
2:12 pm
>> i represent a district where the majority of our are hispanic. they classify themselves as hispanic americans on the census form. for them, even if they have the immigration status approved and they don't have to worry about it, in my district, immigration reform remains a priority. so there is a great sense of frustration that the senate has already acted and the house has yet to act. we hope that we will pass with speaker meters leadership piecemeal a bill to solve the legality of the immigrant and get them on a path to citizenship. but we have to first secure the borders and that is what i hear a lot from our constituents and let's get immigration reform done. that is a priority. but first, let's make sure we won't repeat this mistake and this remedy 10 years from now. so that immigration and also jobs are tied together in my district in south florida.
2:13 pm
we had a big boom financially a few years ago. now construction is at an all- time low. tourism is still the driving force in south florida. but they construction jobs will not be coming back and we are getting a lot of money coming in from venezuela and other places that are unstable. but we don't know how long that will last. there is a sense of insecurity about the economy in south florida. and i think those two issues are what is driving the voters. the third thing that we discuss in congress is that we are glad to be the unifying force. i don't know about the 6% that doesn't approve of us because they are not in south florida. [laughter] >> immigration reform is something that we also talk about a lot in this congress. you have been one of the key players in the house. talk about your role, as a woman, as a peacemaker, try to get agreement and try to work across party lines, something we
2:14 pm
haven't seen a lot of. >> we do have bipartisan leaders who are leading the charge. we have paul ryan and we are working with folks like luis gutierrez. so there is a lot of movement on the immigration situation. i think the press sometimes look at all of the negative parts that are not moving along, but there are a lot of conversations and sidelines moving the for so long. so i am optimistic that we can get it done. i know we are hitting a lot of bumps along the road, but it will be all right. i am optimistic about that. >> just a follow-up on what she said. is there an example in negotiations where you can say you handled it differently than your colleagues, your perspective as a woman. >> i came to the united states
2:15 pm
when i was 8. i am a refugee myself. i have dealt with refugees and immigrants families and see how much it impacts women because, so often, many times, the male is not there. either he is deported or the debt is not present and immigration is really a woman issue. it is a family centered issue. and i think we need to focus it more that way and look at it more about how it impacts the mystic violence also because, if you are an immigrant it -- an immigrant that does not have papers, it is more likely that the person will not tell the police that you are being abused in some way. definitely, women are greatly impacted by the lack of immigration reform. not that they are women issues. i agree that there are no women issues.
2:16 pm
but this issue of immigration directly impacts women and is usually the mom and the kids. >> if we could go back to the senator and a congress woman about what you're hearing in your district. >> a lot of what the countless women have been saying, first of all, the economy is what they care about the most and maybe a little different way in my state. the and implement is now down to 4.8%. we have a lot of thriving -- the unemployment is now down to 4.8%. we have a lot of thriving businesses and we have an educated workforce and we focus a lot on exports. the issues for a lot of our constituents about how much things cost, the concern about the cost of gas being down a little bit, the concern of the cost of college, concern about the cost of health care -- those are the issues they are really
2:17 pm
focused on right now. the second thing he mentioned about unity on wanting congress to work better together. they are very angry about this gridlock. they know that we are out of the downturn and things will stabilize and there are things that we should be doing, like immigration reform. i thank you for that. i am on the judiciary committee and we have seen the provisions of the business side of that can we are proud of that immigration don't want to get it done. on the senate side, there are some major things we have gone done there. and maybe part of it is that nearly half of our leaders, the chairman in the senate, are women. but we have moved ahead i a lot of bills and i think that the shutdown really brought everything to life for people in the country that this is ridiculous. they are actually holding us
2:18 pm
back instead of allowing us to move forward as a country. that is what i hear the most from the people in the state. what i love about the women up here when i think about her military background and the work we are doing on immigration reform and the work that ann has done internationally as an ambassador, and when they come in, you just have to work with them together and you need to look at the backgrounds of the women in congress. a lot of them have come from those kinds of results-oriented fields. i was a prosecutor. that was my job. i couldn't ask any victim with their political affiliation was. i just had to go and get the thing done. i think that has helped us were together and get these things done. but we are ready to move on immigration reform. patty murray is working on it with congressman ryan. i hope we will see a new day in the next few months. >> regardless, from hawaii to florida and everywhere in between, the issues of people are worried about are the same, whether it is the economy or
2:19 pm
jobs or making sure that we are providing good education to our kids and making sure that we have a strong and sustainable future. but the underlying common thread throughout all of that, from women, from constituents as a whole, is not understanding why we are not getting things done. finding it somewhat inconceivable, when there is so much commonality between the issues that we are hearing from at home and there is so much commonality in the things that we would like to tackle collectively regardless of party, why are we able to actually sit down and work out the differences? what she said is true. there is a lot of great work that is happening that doesn't make the headlines. there are a lot of small groups of members meeting, talking about democrats and republicans, not those classified as moderates, but people who represent a broad spectrum of views on policies and politics
2:20 pm
and how to find solutions and saying how do we figure out this budget deficit issue? how do we deal with the debt ceiling? and figuring out. the coming ground that is there. a lot of the work -- and figuring out the common ground that is there. a lot of work is creating the pressure from within to bring these initiatives to the floor and get some movement. >> what has been the biggest surprise for you in terms of being the rank-and-file. you say you have meetings in hawaii and you, to the belt way. -- and you come to the beltway. >> i had the opportunity to work with senator caucus here. i worked with him between my two deployments to the middle east and our two senators from horry were great leaders in many ways from hawaii were great leaders in many ways. they set examples and taught me a lot about building relationships, ones that are based on respect and would withstand the winds blowing one way or the other.
2:21 pm
senator inouye he and senator stevens from alaska were great examples of two best friends. they call each other brother. i laughed when they give their talking about an issue on the house floor. after they were done, they tried to fist bump each other. [laughter] they ended up getting it on the second or third try. but regardless of what happens, they were able to disagree and still remain friends. i was surprised when i first came here, there were a few people and i was reaching out to some of my republican friends and i was criticized. you're not supposed to talk to them. what are you doing? are you kidding me? this is what we need the most. >> i think most of us believe that though more women we have a leadership the better off we are. debbie stepanov has gotten
2:22 pm
closer to reaching an agreement on the farm bill with barbara boxer, working with vendor -- with senator better to get the transportation bill done. and then leading the postal reform. we have worked very hard to develop leaders in the senate. so i don't know exactly the timing. there is kind of a lineup in the senate. [laughter] but i think there is women right now in very important leadership roles, that is inclined barbara mikulski who is our de facto leader of the women in the senate and one of my best moments is when she gathered the women of the senate together before a vote and she stood up and she lifted herself on the couch and i felt like i was back in the 1970s. she said, get out there, square your shoulders, and get ready
2:23 pm
for the revolution [laughter] there is a lot of experience in the women of the senate that passed on and we really stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. >> we want to close with a question for all of your. -- all of you. a lot of this series has been about being women oriented. can you give our audience tangible or a piece of advice to be peacemakers either in the corporate world worm or in the classroom or to take a message of their own from this event today. >> one of the things i have come across is that i have talked to other women who are thinking about getting involved in one way or another, either in elected office or another positions and i am often met with the response that i don't know if i'm qualified. as each of us looks into our lives, there is so much uniquely qualifying about experiences
2:24 pm
that we have gone through, ways that we may not have recognized where we actually have had experience leading a group of people or leading an effort. i think our voices need to be heard more and recognizing and valuing the experience uniquely that we bring to the table, whatever that is, is important for us to recognize and be able to convey to others. >> my advice is really along those lines. sort of leaned in for women who want to go to politics. the negativity is part of the game right now and you will have intense debates and you will be attacked and in commercials and tv's. that will happen. but if you don't get involved, you won't be able to change it. one of the best ways to change it is if people of opposite hearties that may stand in the opposite boxing ring on some things that they can say that courage is no longer doing that. courage is standing next to
2:25 pm
someone that you don't normally agree with for the betterment of our country and for people to be able to go together on tv to change things. not everything is negative. the only way you will change the nuances of it is by doing it yourself. >> for me, balance. in my 30 years of elected office, i am still try to find that balance between my professional life, my family life, and finding some me time as well. i'm am still juggling. we still feel like -- whether you are a teller at a bank or a barista or a member of congress or a member of the senate -- we still have our perfection allies. we have our personal lives. we never get it right. the key juggling and you will find that balance that fits you and it may not be the textbook definition of balance, but if it works for you and it works for your family, then that is a great thing and never forget
2:26 pm
that family is the number one, above everything else, that you've got going on. your relationship with god and your family. >> taking the balance analogy, i will tell you that women -- that what women juggle isn't a, a bowling ball and a chainsaw and then the cell phone rings. that's what women juggle is an egg, a bowling ball and a chainsaw and then the cell phone rings. [laughter] whether you are a democrat or libertarian or republican, say yes. step out of your comfort zone. we need you. we need your voice. we need your leadership. we need your common sense. women, as i said, multitaskers, communicators, they bring people together.
2:27 pm
we listened. we are the ones who ask for directions when we are lost, right? [laughter] and i would encourage all women to get involved in so many ways. you are involved in your communities and your careers. you can have it all. not all at once. i have three great kids. i have drug them across the country. i have drug them across the world. and here to washington, d.c. and people say to me you are a great role modern -- role model to your daughter. and i say that i am a that her role model to my sons. they see strong women who are willing to stand up and say, ok, i will put the flak jacket on. i will take it because i'm going to do what's right for them, for their future, for my constituents. it is just a joy. the kind of relationship building that we are able to do as a team is important to walking across that i'll, getting things done.
2:28 pm
i have seen it in financial services committee and the many different ways. i will leave you all with just say yes. >> thank you so much to our panelists for such an engaging conversation. [applause] >> earlier this month, politico held a summit called the women rule series. they highlighted the importance of networking during this 20 minute panel. >> i'm a defense reporter at politico. i'm delighted to be joined by a senior white house correspondent and this group of women about the new network. we are joined by the founder of the muse, a career development platform and she was named two years in a row on forbes list of 30 under 30 in media. we also have a social platform for awesome women.
2:29 pm
she is also a columnist. we also have the co-creator of take our daughters to work day. a leading nonprofit of resources for women to grow micro businesses and $2 million to prices. last but not least, we are joined by the founder and executive director for black girls rock that mentors women of color in their careers. our hash tag is #womenrule. let's get started. >> we're talking about networking and how specifically this applies to women. it is something that a lot of people may be uncomfortable doing because it forces them to obtain self promote beyond their
2:30 pm
comfort level and may be forces you to be outgoing if you're not completely outgoing. we wanted to talk. this is something that we discussed ahead of time. we want to talk about practical applications for this. talk about something that is maybe an example in your own life or in some sort of advice you have given someone in a networking situation. >> i'm a big fan of networking. i used to be opposed or afraid of it. when i started my business, the muse, my success was dependent on getting in front of investors and potential clients. i had to quickly put myself out there. one of the things i found that was most effective was coming up with one or two things that i potentially wanted that someone could help me with. we were talking about this earlier. [laughter] i got very good at it. at one point we wanted a partnership.
2:31 pm
we wanted this partnership and no way of getting it. a for entire month come every time someone asked me how it was going and what i was up to, i said things were great. working on trying to get a partnership with yahoo! or something else. how are you? the conversation would continue and 3% would say their colleague's sister's post man works at yahoo! [laughter] i got seven authors of connection and three followed up and one had a deal with us. >> wow. is there way to push forward? >> i think the flipside of this is people showing up. social media can give you a deceptive sense of connection that is not as deep.
2:32 pm
what you want is having a sense of who you're speaking to and what they can offer. that we're not blaming walking up to people and saying, here is what i have. you walk up with the novel of knowledge. people want to be helpful, but you want to make it as easy as it is for them to be helpful. you do not have to do deep googling like for a first date. [laughter] have a sense of what they consider valuable so you can figure out how to message what you are doing better. >> what do you think? >> one of the things i think is most important in washington is being able to quickly let people know what it is that you do. how can you be helpful to them?
2:33 pm
it is a two-way street. women in particular are challenged by this. there are banks and bills we use as our careers grow. people did not say their names necessarily. you have got to say her name. where are you from? this is what i am about. people can hear you opposite from where you're sitting. how do you quickly get to know each other see you can start to see how you can exchange information or help? we do a two-minute pitch in the small business world. if you have one minute down of im so and so and this is what i do and i am looking for a promotion or a new job or whatever it is -- none of the women sitting at my table said they kind of hoped something would change. only when someone told someone i am so and so and a promotion is
2:34 pm
what they wanted. it is a lot about telling people what it is you're looking for what you want whether it is in the workplace or networking situation. >> say it aloud. >> absolutely. if it is in your head, you're the only one who knows. [laughter] say it. you have to talk to someone about these things. this is not a female or anything. this is a conversation of looking at someone and saying i'm looking for this. it is a different, friendlier open exchange. >> you have a unique situation. you are a formal model and dj and decided to create a group called black girls rock. how is networking coming into play? what are some tips you get from that?
2:35 pm
>> i'm actually one of those leaders that is challenged by networking. i was pushed into the spotlight, especially when i began black girls rock. i knew it was a necessity to start the organization. i do not necessarily want to be the spokesperson. i wanted to do my work and lay back. that did not happen. i was forced to be in the spotlight. in the process, i made the network amongst each other. it helps them build their confidence and it helps me build my confidence up. it is this event at my table, table 16 shout out -- [laughter] -- we did introduce ourselves. it is about letting them know who you are what you have to offer and how you can work
2:36 pm
together. a lot of people want to network, but they do not necessarily know how to make themselves of a service to you as well. >> i want to ask a question about networking. in order to be a successful networker, do women need to act like men? >> no. we are not men. we need to be ourselves. i think there is a way. you need that short explanation of who you are. you want to work with them. you want to meet them halfway and have them understand who you are and where you are and maybe what you have to offer them and that is the same know what you want to understand about them. do you need to do it the same way?
2:37 pm
absolutely not. be yourself. i'm thinking about networking with men. it is much more straightforward in a lot of ways. they gave you a card and if you want to do something, call me. i asked more questions. i think we can lead them into a conversation or both would end up knowing more about each other and whether it is worth following up or not. it is being incumbent upon us to really try to engage and get some sense of who is doing what and how we can be helpful to each other. there's leadership women can provide where everyone might get more out of it. [laughter] >> i think when you say network like men, what you are addressing is women tend to be shyer about declaring their needs and what they want. often times it is infused with a sense of apology and not what needs to be addressed. it is difficult to walk into a group of people that you don't know, but you need to get rid of the sense that you are asking permission and just say here is what i want. don't apologize.
2:38 pm
>> it goes perfectly with what i was thinking. how do you network in an aggressive environment? i have gotten better at it. especially when you run a tech startup in a field that is often 80% male investors. people would regularly mistake me for the significant other or the girlfriend. [laughter] to have any conversation i had to get over my fear of self- promoting and say it is great to meet you. what do you do? i run a tech startup. all of a sudden they're not writing me off. it was not something i was comfortable doing in the beginning, but i felt i had to do it to get heard.
2:39 pm
it made me better in general. i do find that a lot of you probably encountered this. some people have been very helpful. that is great. you can get introductions to incredible people. she explicitly asked someone, mayor see. i am so excited to meet these people.
2:40 pm
do you have any men in your network i should speak to as well? i think his head when, all my goodness. he is right. >> i hear you guys -- being more involved in the conversation and change the mindset. you seem like some who is more reserved. how did you change your mindset? >> it is a process of growing into your confidence. you're forced to because of your business. i started black on black in 2006. i did not speak on mic until 2009. i was really forced to speak to the world. i had to go into that. it took a while. i did suffer from that -- i do not want to say that i wasn't worthy, but apologetic. >> are grateful that they asked you.
2:41 pm
>> yeah. sometimes now i find myself almost fascinating, even when you call the for this panel. [laughter] like, really? you want me? i had to get through that and understand and value what i bring to the world. that is a process. >> speaking practically about networking, what has worked for you and what has not worked for you? facebook? e-mail? twitter? what are your thoughts on social media and how it has impacted networking? >> i and my co-founder are strong on social media. my presence on social media is far less of a comfort zone for me. it depends on what level you are starting at.
2:42 pm
showing up and meeting people and shaking hands and putting your face in front of them is the most important thing to me. when i have met someone and i can associate a face or a conversation or event with them, i feel so much more likely to respond to the e-mail or the tweet or facebook invite. when i look at my own career in media that took off in 2007- 2008, attending all of those events was the game changer. i know that twitter was in such a player at that point, that showing up and saying hello increases exponentially your chance that when i see an e- mail, it will trigger a response. i associated with something more substantial. >> i think if you meet someone and you see that person, you almost want to move past that and become friends.
2:43 pm
>> allies. >> exactly. i love going into rooms and seeing if there is some i have met once before and finding them and saying i am glad to see a familiar face even if i know a lot of other people in the room better. it is like to say i recognize you. i know you. let's brave this. everyone is uncomfortable to a level. most people are happy to make that connection. the other thing i do is i start at the food table. [laughter] first of all, i'm always hungry. when there is food, you have funny conversations. you asked them about whether they have tried the granola. a let you have a conversation with less force. if it is an evening party, a gives you an excuse to leave to go to the bar.
2:44 pm
[laughter] >> for more practical information on this, whether you are going into a room full of people are making a phone call to try to get a meeting, how do you prioritize who you are calling? how do you state your goals clearly? how do you go in with an articulated goal? >> i would be as straightforward as possible. an terms of the phone calls, who are you closest to? who is the most direct link to what it is you want? how much research do you have to do to understand who knows that person best that you know? you can call them and say i am so-and-so and so-and-so is a friend of mine and told me that i should talk to you and this is what i am looking for. the thing that drives me insane
2:45 pm
are these long stories that i get. i am sitting there. what do you want? [laughter] what do you want? seriously, get to the point. she is doing all of those hand signals. [laughter] if you are busy, if i listen to all of the stories, i would not have done half of what i'd done. say i am so-and-so and here is who i know and can you help me with this? most the time you will get a, "send me more information," but you have gotten your contact. what is it that you want? be clear. the person you are asking -- think about who it is. they have got more going on or too much going on.
2:46 pm
get into the lexicon of the task that they will perform and make it easy for them to help you. make it easy for them to help you. most people want to help you, but make it easy for them. >> that is the most important thing. even when i started black girls rock, before we were on television, we had a strong and healthy group of well-known people that supported this. it was because i was clear about the mission and what the problem was and what the mission was and what we wanted them to do. they responded in a way that was favorable. it was not because i wrote them long letters about the issues. i just made it clear this is a problem and i wanted do something about it and here's how i'm going to bring about that change. >> women tend to have that sense of apology.
2:47 pm
you can be polite and direct at the same time. the subject line has to be direct. state it right there. the e-mail doesn't have to be blah, blah, blah just make it easy for the person to help you. don't get wrapped up in the thinking that you are abrasive or rude. this is what i need. [laughter] >> it is easy. >> yes or no. >> it is kind of fascinating. when you look at studies, women do not always articulate their career goals. this is something i can identify with. what do you want to do next? excuse me?
2:48 pm
are you asking me how much i weigh? that is very private. what advice do you have an terms of articulating career goals? >> i think it is something a lot of women struggle with. you got to haggle. seriously. you have got to think about this. it will not happen to you. you make it happen. you have got to spend time. someone will ask you -- hopefully a lot of people ask you -- you will have to say i am considering such and such with so-and-so. what do you think? it is not like you have to -- i was at table 18. they're talking how to make the right choice. put it out there though they can get back to what the right choices for you.
2:49 pm
it cannot all be in your head. everyone that is here today, write down what you want in your future. it can be three things. anytime anyone ask you, you have got that. that way the conversation can continue other than sitting and saying, gee, i missed an opportunity. commit to yourself. answer that question. if you can, you will get there. if you can articulate it, you can have it. >> we are unfortunately running out of time. we will leave it there for this morning. thank you for spending time with us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] womenk to politico's rules summit with remarks from jackie spirit on women and
2:50 pm
second careers. harman,oined by jane who now heads the wilson center. this is half an hour. getood morning, we will started. i am the managing editor for news at politico. we are very happy to have you here and very excited about the second -- we have a diverse group of women who have renewed themselves through their careers in tenacity and performance. she has a masters of economics and doctors in science theater -- in science. she's now a burgeoning restaurant here and philanthropist. crew millione restaurant in manhattan and is an avid supporter of women in the food industry. terms inan spent nine
2:51 pm
congress, rising in the ranks of the nation's leading security and intelligence policy experts. at, what someess may think, is the height of her career to take the helm of the woodrow wilson center of the first female director, president, and ceo. fora pinto designed michelle obama and oprah winfrey. she relaunched her latest brand with a popular campaign on the kickstart her. speerngresswoman jackie has had a historic career on capitol hill pitch she has faced personal tragedy, experienced personal setbacks and losses, and has risen above all of that to become a valued meter -- valued leader in the democratic party. this is all about second act. how do you renew, how do you start over?
2:52 pm
whether it is tragedy or economic necessity or simply boredom, is a second act a path of self-discovery? >> how much time do you have a? >> they will kick us off in half an hour. >> in my case, i grew up in india. since the age of 12, my dream was clearly to save the world. i went to the world bank office on a dusty hot summer day in new delhi and asked them how i got a job -- how to get a job. they said go get a phd at a phd and come back. which is what i did. it baffles me. there have been many twists and
2:53 pm
turns. and they were on the road with a nice expensive -- travel tremendously. when itd was booming came to food. it still is. there was a combination of wanting to go entrepreneurial and rage. i was furious at the indian options out there. eat, $8.99. this is the oldest civilization in this valley. at the complexity is tremendous. one hase can do what no done for japanese or others have done for. -- and now french and italian. this is what drove me to take the plunge from the frying pan
2:54 pm
into the fire. claws thaty wear her her clothes and now i am going to your restaurant. -- wearing her clothes and now i am going to a restaurant. i grew up in los angeles as a public high school kid. early boyfriend, went to the democratic convention in l.a. in 1960. floor of then the convention when john kennedy was nominated for president. my personal light bulb went off and i just knew i wanted a career in politics. it took me 32 years to run for congress, the first elected office i fought for since junior high school treasurer. of i was -- i was a congressional aide for a long time. i worked in the carter white house. i was in private law practice, which is very boring.
2:55 pm
i ran for congress, served for nine terms, left for the third term to run for governor of california, which i lost, and then left because the opportunity to be the ceo of the wilson center is enormous. hamilton.eded lee it is extraordinary. it is a big international stage. i am very interested in international issues. the only other thing i say about all this is i see life as a journey. there are many stops on the way. where you go with this journey is up to you. your mother cannot give it to you. i have four kids. .hey can certainly inspire you grandkids are much better than kids, by the way. you have to go there and you have to have the passion and drive. fourth or fifth
2:56 pm
career, i am planning on five more. [applause] >> maria. >> i want to challenge the word "reinvention." it is about evolution. i like your perspective that it is a journey. just been career has an evolving process of what we learn and bring to the table today. i canesigner today embrace things in a much different way of as a designer and a woman. that brings more relevance to what i would consider doing now. that is my first challenge. for some reason i get twitchy when i hear "reinvention." it sounds like you are trying to fix something as opposed to building on something that you have invested so much of your life into. it goes back to passion and drive. had four or five lives already.
2:57 pm
>> you still have hubbell a number to go. >> the first thing i would say is throw out plan. it will not go the way you expect to go. no need to waste any time what you're going to look like. i lost student body president in high school, i lost the first time i ran for congress in 1979. in 2006 i thought i was going to be thesurf -- going to first woman to serve in that role. every time i lost i found out i on. w it set me up to do something more extraordinary than i thought i was gone to be able to do.
2:58 pm
there is not just a second act, there are many many acts. do not confine yourself into thinking that you have to find out the perfect job for you. the imperfect job, the odd -- the job you hate, is good to teach you about what you really want. >> i want to go back to a point congresswoman harman made. i like the concept of a journey. how do you know when it is time to take that journey, when you stand in place for a while and when you take that next step cap step? >> you next need to fight for what you want. there are different ways to fight. by does not always mean kicking somebody to -- somebody in the face. failure is your friend.
2:59 pm
also had personal loss, which jackie has had. of right after i take the wilson job, my husband was diagnosed with leukemia. do not get that. he died within a month. it was brutal. i don't know how to say that. i think it is true being in the wrong drop can teach you what you do not like. being in the wrong job is sometimes useful to prove yourself to get a better job. i'm looking around this room. be fearless. do it. fig about what you really really want to do. check out other things. advice, it ise of much easier to get a job from a job.
3:00 pm
your just quit and sit on bed and say i need a job. sometimes biteo your time, and especially if you are raising a family. i do not mean quit. when i had four kids at home, it was a hard thing to juggle all of this, and when i finally ran for congress, two of them, one was in college and one was a school year abroad, so it was more manageable, what one last point about this, the life balance, work balance thing. i one night called him to tell my then nine-year-old, my youngest, who is now 29, she survived me. she is not a drug dealer. she is very happy and beautiful, but i said, justine, i cannot come home and put you to bed because i have to stay at home
3:01 pm
to vote, and her answer was, mommy, why is staying there to vote more important than coming home and putting me to bed? >> what was the answer? >> years later, i still do not know. time took me a long have my first child. i was 38 years old, and then i had a couple of miscarriages at 17 weeks, and it was very tough, and then we adopted a baby, and then the birth mother 10 days later took the baby away, and i am crying and coming home and am saying to my husband, why do these bad things keep happening to us? and he said, wait a minute. we have a beautiful son and each other and our health, so i go to be fertility specialist who sells to me in the oh so kind way, based on the age of your
3:02 pm
eggs and your medical history, you have about a 10% chance of getting pregnant with in vitro. bad, that sounded like odds, so we closed that chapter, grateful to have our son, and i started running statewide for secretary of state, and then the time of the month came and went and came and went and came and went, and finally at 11:00 at night, i ran out to get a home pregnancy test, take it, and it was turning the right color for the first time after doing in hundreds of times, and i call my husband who is an er doc and say, honey, i think i am pregnant, and he said, what was it, immaculate conception? [laughter] enough, he was coming out of the hospital, he was an er doc, and we come at a hospital and get the blood test, and he says, you are pregnant. i got pregnant naturally at 43.
3:03 pm
[applause] so do not give up hope. the sad part of that particular story was that two weeks later, i announced i was not running for secretary of state any longer because it was a high risk pregnancy because of my two miscarriages before, and then two weeks later, my husband was killed in an automobile accident, and i was then a single parent with a 5.5-year- our a widow, pregnant with second child, and my husband, who was a remarkable guy, who let hisr doc, he insurance lapse, and i was three from personal bankruptcy. >> third, fourth, and fifth acts. how do you take that? and frankly wanted to die, i would sit, and it was a high risk pregnancy, so i was at bed
3:04 pm
rest for a good part of it, and i remember my dad who was this big, dramatic guy coming to visit me, and i said, dad, i just do not know if i can go on with this. i miss steve so much, and this pregnancy, and he looked at me and said, jackie, it has then three months. get over it. tough words. we, in part, that is what have to do. whatever it is that comes our way that is painful and traumatic, we have got to get the wherewithal and surround ourselves with family and friends to help us through hard times, and you have to be willing to ask for what you want. my husband, it was tough, and people did not want to hear me talking about it three years later, but i was still in a lot of pain. at i found ways of creating universe of people around me who were of like mind. merryled ourselves the
3:05 pm
widows, and nobody wanted to join that club, but it was a friendship of women who even today get together three or four times a year to support each other, so developed that universe of people to help you. like to add to the question about the timing, because you were not in a situation where circumstances had imposed a change on you. you were at a job earning a lot of money. why make that change? people thought you were crazy to do it? >> i want to write a book on this. it is ridiculous, especially when you come from an indian background and have invested in a phd, to go from that to a small business, of all of those restaurants, it is appalling. i think my parents are still hoping i will come back to sanity. and my in-laws even more so. we all at mckinsey had worked
3:06 pm
with countries, the world bank, and i have eaten out a lot, so that makes me a connoisseur, right? man, was i in for a journey. really. but what i would counsel to anyone who is looking to grow, -- for me, there are people i thrive outside my comfort zone. i get my energy from that area a little bit of insecurity and fear and push, and so for me, i did not just quit mckenzie and say, this is it. i took an absence. i took a couple of months to really invest in myself. we called it early immersion. we didn't even at mckinsey. i would talk to people, i lived with a restaurant to her. i did the numbers inside out. i spoke to bankers. i wanted to convince myself, is this a viable, conceptually and
3:07 pm
financially? it is not philanthropy. i am not just throwing away a career for ego, and it was only after i did those three months, still, it taught me very little. i so miss having hr. legal, travel, corporate. when i have an empire, i will get all of that back. it has been such an amazing journey. hugely gratifying, and i strongly endorse making that change, whether you call it second act, evolution, renewal, whatever. >> maria, you are in a position where you are had your dream job, and everything was going so well, and because of the economic downturn, you had to step back and rethink. you not let fear hold you
3:08 pm
back in a position like that? >> i think you hit a point that toe shoe that you have to move on, and to your point, you surround yourself with really dynamic, strong people. you do not make any of these major life decisions without consulting and gathering it is not easy. it is easy to sit here and talk about it. when you're in that space, it gets very dark and scary, and then you just have to find the, you know, whatever you want to refer to, whether it is in your soul, your network of friends. there is a pragmatic side and then another side that moves you to the next place, and it is absolutely not easy, but i have absolutely no regrets. is best thing that happened i closed my company in 2010, and i was able to do consulting work and have a more information, which is informing what i am doing now, and it is so much
3:09 pm
more interesting and dynamic. i have absolutely no regrets at this point. years of a bige roller coaster ride? absolutely. but if i were going to advise someone, i would say take the lead. there is always something better on the other side. you do not know what it is, but you have to have faith. it is always scary. when is it not scary? look around the room. coming here today, rising fear, what is going to happen. there is always some kind of fear that plays into what we do. and you do not have that sense it thrill, what everyone's, it is an emotional kind of drug, and it drives you to the next place. i lived probably on the edge more than most people i know, and they respect me, but at the same time, they know that i am a little crazy, and you have to be. otherwise, it is boring. i have absolutely no regrets. my life has never been boring,
3:10 pm
but it has been definitely scary, but i had great experiences, just like everyone sitting here. much, andnot come up it is women supporting women. a lot of what jackie is talking about. it is about this network of women support. by the way, when my husband died, one of the first people who called me was jackie. she sent me a lovely book, and we had breakfast and talked about it. >> what is the book? >> this is not the life i ordered. >> a beautiful book. not all women help women. i thought i would share this little secret with you. [laughter] madeleine albright said, and boy, is she right, there is a cold place in hell for women who do not support women. and aing on women mentors support group of women, not just your families, although there may be strong women in your
3:11 pm
families, but use those support networks, but also in you it your self. pay it forward. it is so important that you become the mentors and people who inspire younger women who are wondering whether they can get out of their comfort zone. i bet there were strong women in your life you may be did not do crazy things you did, but maybe in your own family got out of the comfort zones. i am sure there were other saw, even inu india, who were role models for at least the kind of journey you wanted. think role models necessarily have to be women, and i do not think mentors have to be women. i think men can be incredibly helpful, but it is up to us to reach out, but i totally agree with you about the point about building the network. culinary, it is nice to have a conversation with rachel earlier, but the statistics of leadership of
3:12 pm
women in culinary, and when i am talking about leadership, i am orking about restauranteurs leadership. it makes the senate look like holly lilia. truly. it makes it look fabulous. little over 50%, but when it comes to winning a war and being positions, well below 10%, even as low as three percent. i am now on the board of trustees of the james beard organization, making a effort, toe literally build leadership with women. it is not more education grants, more scholarships. you do not need more education. entrepreneurial,
3:13 pm
unless you can do your balance sheet and investment capital, p&l, talk the language of owners. management and running an entire kitchen. and we are hoping to build a groundswell of change in the industry. why is it important? not because i want my daughters to be restauranteurs. god forbid. but women need to own half the sky, right? so why not? >> i want to pick up on the congresswoman's story. you shared some personal tragedy with us, but there was other. you were shot five times and left for dead. a sense of, again, how you come back from an experience like that. you talked about surrounding yourself with good friends, but what do you draw from yourself
3:14 pm
to go forward? >> i was 28 years old when that happened. i was the legislative counsel to a congressman, and there was a cold, although it was called a church, in san francisco called the people's temple, and 900 members along with their reverend, jim jones, went to south america to guyana to set up a commune there, and many of the congressman's constituents were concerned about their loved , who theyg adults felt were subject to mind control and had just cut themselves off from their families, so we made the trip down there. many people wanted to leave. on the airstrip, unbeknownst to us, a tractor-trailer had followed behind us with seven gunmen and shot and killed a congressman, shot 45 times, a number members of the press, and
3:15 pm
i was shot five times on the right side of my body, and i have got to tell you, at 28, thinking, oh, my god, this is it. i am not going to live to 88 and get married and have 2.5 kids. this is it, and when you have moments like that in your life, it kind of puts everything in made ative, and i just commitment to myself that if i did live, if i did survive, i would never take another day for granted, live everyday as fully as possible, and commit myself to public service, so i am one of those who literally have had a couple of lives, and i am very lucky to be here, as are we all. [applause] >> i think that is a wonderful note to close on, and i am being given signals that that needs to happen, but before we do, maria,
3:16 pm
i promised my daughter, who wants to be a fashion designer, that i would ask you a question from her, which is what will your look like, and do you think it will be a big hit? [laughter] you are all ine this room. you have to go to my website. and you said something earlier. i do appreciate having mentors, and if i did not say, i thank them, mentors and friends that have been men who have supported me, but i do recognize and appreciate what was said earlier in terms of women supporting women, and it is our responsibility. i just got a call this morning. i launched my new collection on kick starter, by the way, which is a really cool platform. me and said,mailed i am launching a product, do you have time to speak with me? and i have many of those, and i
3:17 pm
try to respond to all of them, and i know if there is five minutes, i can share some insight. it is one thing to say it, and it is another thing to do it, but i share that responsibility. >> yes, it is going to be a big hit. ay do not each of you give me one sentence closing thought, anything you want to wrap up on, or anything you wish we had an wish we did. >> my donner, justine, who i disappointed profamily 20 years ago is now the beauty and, andditor at ell she is my fashion editor, and she will be very impressed that i met you. >> i just want to thank all of you. i am always inspired by women i meet, and i am always looking forward to meeting the wonderful women on the panel, and thank you for allowing me to be here. >> thank you. two, and glad >>,
3:18 pm
to be here. i want to end with this quote. not arriving in a well preserved body but to be totally used up, totally worn out, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other. what a ride. [applause] [laughter] [applause] thank you. >> ok, it is your turn. >> who can beat that? expect the martini is a rum and coke. to be here.asure i really hope all of you pursue your dreams. it is about that. as long as it is passion, it is worth the ride. and i want to thank politico for a lovely morning. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
3:19 pm
week, book tv is in prime time on c-span2, beginning tonight with books on law and the courts, starting at 8:30 p.m., a book on the supreme court under chief justice john roberts. book the great dissent looks at the first amendment and how it was interpreted in an early 20th- century supreme court case, and at 10: 30, military prosecutions of suspects with the book the terror courts. and on c-span3, it is american history in prime time. eastern, a8:00 p.m. look at george washington and his lifelong interest in learning and education. that is followed at 9:15 p.m. with a look at his presidency, thehor's talk about
3:20 pm
early stages of the revolution. >> he says what he thinks, no matter what it is. be politicalave to in a certain way. you have to be honest, and you have to say the same things, but, still, you have to cater to people sometimes, i think, and know what they want and need to be able to influence them to vote for you. it is not being dishonest, it is just finding out what they want and letting them know how you're going to help them with those problems, things that they want. >> first ladies, influence and image, season two. this week, rosalind johnson to carter. weeknights on c-span.
3:21 pm
>> things are on fire and moving extremely fast. it expires after five to 10 years, and then everything is new, the cloud is new. facebook is new. a lot of new programming languages. historically what we have done, we have spliced human life into four or five slices. phase, andlearned then kind of a resting phase afterwards and eventually dying, but i think we should have them all at the same time. we should play, learn, work, and rest all at the same time, because the world moves so fast today. we really have to stay up-to- day on c-ew year's span just before 1 p.m. eastern and throughout the afternoon, future of higher education, robotics, and data as the new industrial revolution on c-span2's book tv.
3:22 pm
kay bailey hutchison on the women who shaped texas, and on c-span3, american history tv, daughters of civil rights share their memories of the civil rights era at 8:30. >> next, a look back to the supreme court key decisions in 2013 and what lies ahead for the court in 2014. from washington journal, this is close to one hour. at the deske joined now by harvard law professor and a scholar of all things supreme court, and professor, also the author of a recently published book on the supreme court titled in the balance. that is the name of that book. or faster, what are the two forces that are in the balance in this book? est: the court is divided now between republican presidents who were quite conservative and
3:23 pm
after you are appointees of democratic presidents who were more liberal, and the balance is between the balance of those two, and in particular, the future of the court depends on what the next appointed one is going to be. >> in this book, you talk about the difference between the roberts courts and the kagan court. explain that to us. guest: we normally talk about who is the court head, and we are talking about something now called the roberts court, but the chief justice is not always the leader of the court. brennan wasiam probably the leader of the court in terms of organizing the thinking of the court and writing the most important opinions. there is a chance if the next
3:24 pm
appointee is a democratic appointee that justice kagan leader,rge as the court displacing chief justice roberts with the leading a more or less consistent liberal majority as against the conservative majority. host: you write in your book that the future of the court will be shaped by not only the nominations that obama and his successors will make, but the competition between roberts and kagan for the intellectual leadership of the court, as each forcefully articulates differing views about the balance between law and politics. when the justices are looking at cases, how much are they taking the long view, the competing balances you are talking about, and how much our cases decided in a vacuum? guest: each justice comes to the court with a relatively well shaped judicial philosophy or ideology that he or she deploys
3:25 pm
in a particular case. of course each case presents different issues, and those issues are legal and limited to particular problems. so in some cases, every case is a combination of applying your general legal philosophy to the particular problem at hand. the balance will shift depending on how significant the case is, whether it is a question of interpreting federal statute, where the judicial philosophy will have a relatively smaller part as compared to an issue like the constitutionality of a major federal statute where the judicial philosophy will have a much larger role. host: we are talking with mark
3:26 pm
tushnet, the william lawson cromwell professor at harvard law school, who divides his time between boston and d.c. if you want to talk about all things supreme court or his book "in the balance," our phone lines are open. the phone numbers are, for republicans, 202-585-3881. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for independents, 202-5 85-3882. and if you are outside the u.s., it is -3883. professor, how long have you been studying the supreme court? guest: i have been teaching for 42 years. something like that. before i started teaching, i was a law clerk for justice thurgood marshall, so i saw how the court operated inside the court. things have changed a lot in the way the court operates, but i
3:27 pm
have been paying attention to the supreme court basically for my entire professional career. host: you say things have changed. the 2012-2013 term of the supreme court -- how demonstrated is the balance between law and politics? guest: i actually think the dates of decisions begin to blur and you have been studying the court as long as i have, but obviously the decision in the affordable care act or obamacare case was a central feature of the court's most recent decisions, and there the record the court divided oddly in a many issued case, ultimately upholding the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but really structuring it in a way that contributes to some of the problems we have been seeing as it is coming into force.
3:28 pm
the five justices held the constitution did not allow congress to enact a statute under its power to regulate interstate commerce, but five justices did say that congress had the power to do this as an exercise of its power to tax, so we have an individual mandate coming into effect over the next couple of weeks. in addition, there is the decision last term in the united states, a lateral but important issue in connection with the issue of gay marriage. a decision striking down an important provision of the voting rights act of 1965. all of these are changes where the traditional philosophies of liberals and conservatives divide them and lead to different outcomes, lead to the divisions that we see in the
3:29 pm
court's interpretation of the constitution. host: you write in your book that some of the 2013 cases from this past summer might demonstrate that the court is still justice kennedy's court. explain that. guest: right now justice kennedy is what everybody would describe as the swing justice. now, he is quite conservative, but he is not consistently conservative or does not go along with all aspects of what the current conservative ideology is. he has been on the court for a relatively long time. he was appointed when conservatives were somewhat different from what it is now will stop and he has a libertarian streak that comes out particularly in gay rights cases.
3:30 pm
so when the alignment is right, when the issues are ones that particularly appeal to his distinctive way of being a conservative, he will be the dispositive vote. that will not last forever. there will be new appointees, and justice kennedy may not be, as the political science calls them, the median justice in the middle of the court. for more than a few more years. host: we are talking about the supreme court with mark tushnet. author and harvard law professor, and as we said, scholar of all things supreme court. if you have questions for him, comments and phone lines are open some of the books that you have written -- we will start with randy from citrus heights, california, on our line for republicans. randy, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to dispute's your guest's assertion.
3:31 pm
that justice roberts is the strong conservative leader of the court. of the right side of the court. i would disagree. i would say just as thomas is the intellectual leader of the group. if not him, maybe scalia. but i understand the inclination of any harvard academian --they want to basically prop up roberts as a hero because of his vote on the health care law, each, in my opinion and the opinion of millions of us, is a stain on his tenure. host: let's let mr. tushnet explain that. guest: i don't want to dispute the claim that justice scalia and justice thomas are powerful
3:32 pm
influences on the conservative side. justice scalia has articulated a philosophy or judicial approach of interpreting the constitution according to its original understanding. estes thomas is even more so unoriginal honest -- an originalist. but leadership on the court involves a combination of intellectual chops, the ability of -- the ability to articulate clearly and forcefully a vision of the constitution, a combination of that with kind of a marshaling of the forces, being able to go along with you, and justice thomas in particular is largely -- he is not all that interested in making sure that
3:33 pm
he puts things in ways that other people will be able to sign on to. chief justice roberts does have this sort of -- i would call it a sort of social facility, and being the leader -- not nearly intellectually, but in combination with the sort of social skills that allow him to assemble a majority. host: bill king writes in on twitter -- guest: i think it is quite unlikely that any of the current justices will depart the court voluntarily before the next
3:34 pm
presidential election. i put it that way because several of the justices are getting up there in years, and you never can predict things about health issues. but at the moment all of them appeared to be perfectly healthy and likely to stay on through the next election, because it is a good job and they like what they are doing. host: how much is the idea of who takes over there see important to justices when they look at the timing of their retirements -- from twitter -- guest: there are some scholarly studies about the timing of departures from the court, and there is a sort of modest reason that you can see for justices to stay on the court, and to steal a president from the arty whose
3:35 pm
president appointed then controls the presidency. it is a modest tendency, not universally true. there is some of that going on, or some of that affects some of the way the justices think. and sort of understandably so. justice scalia has said he does not want to leave the court, preventing an opportunity for -- presenting an opportunity for a them a credit president that would undo all the work justice scalia has been doing over the course of his career. it is worth noting that three of the conservative justices are
3:36 pm
relatively young, as supreme court ages go. justices scalia and kennedy are the most senior in age, but they have expressed no interest in leaving not just -- well, justice scalia because he does not want to see his work undone. justice kennedy, because he likes being the focus of attention as the median justice. host: we are talking to mark tushnet, and previously he served at the georgetown law university. he is here to take your questions and comments. herb is up next from springville, new york, on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes, good morning, professor. my question relates to a subject
3:37 pm
that, as far as i know, has never been heard or considered by the supreme court. let's go back just a little bit in history. in 1945, as you well know, we were a signatory to the united nations charter. in fact, we were a charter member, you might say. we not only signed as a signatory to the united nations charter, but it was then ratified, as you also well know, by our senate. that, to me, makes it the law of the land. the united nations codifies international law. so therefore, why hasn't, since it has been the law of the land, why hasn't the united states been required to follow international law as codified by the united nations charter?
3:38 pm
guest: the constitution does say that treaties that the united states find are the law of the land, the supreme law of the land, and the u.s. is required to follow international law, the supreme court has said so and has enforced some aspect of international law, even cases that get to the court. now, a lot of issues involving international law, those get to the supreme court or to the federal courts at all, partly because they are largely political issues. but it is also partly because the court has developed a series of doctrines that screen out the kind of cases, these doctrines including the idea that the person bringing a constitutional
3:39 pm
talent has to be injured by the illegality that is alleged. the issue cannot be, as the court puts it, a political question which is left to the congress or the president to resolve. those devices keep a fair number of important issues of international law away from the supreme court. host: john is from owings, maryland, on our line for independents this morning. you are on with mark tushnet. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a question about comparing and contrasting judicial activism, jury nullification, and the role of the supreme court in these issues. guest: ok, so -- i am pausing because i want to make sure i can get the analogy correct. i guess the idea is that when a
3:40 pm
jury engages in jury nullification, it is setting its judgment about what is right against or over the judgment of the legislature with an active statute, there being -- and the analogy is that the supreme court, when it finds a statute unconstitutional, is also setting its judgment against what the legislature did when it enacted the statute. i think there is a certain kind of parallel, but it is worth emphasizing that when juries nullify, they don't have to use plain what they are doing. whereas when the supreme court justices find the statute unconstitutional, they have the right an opinion of explaining why in their judgment the statute is inconsistent with the constitution as properly
3:41 pm
construed. and again, maybe this is just a professional interest of mine as a law professor, but i think there is a difference between actions that are made, that are done without an explanation, and those that come accompanied with i don't want to deny that -- i think the president -- the present judicial opinion makes supreme court decisions different from jury nullification. >> what made him change the law to a tax? >> the affordable care act, i take a position that nobody agrees with.
3:42 pm
i think, as i put it, there were the chief justice changed his mind sometime between the case was argued and the time it came down. at the outset, he said he thought it was unconstitutional. and then, he ended up -- as a couple of viewers have suggested, upholding the statute on one ground while striking on a mother. -- striking another. the thought is that somewhere in between, he changed his mind. my own view is that he actually did not change his mind -- he made up his mind on issues he had not thought very much about. all of the attention given clause,on the commerce whether congress has the power
3:43 pm
to require people to buy insurance because of his power to regulate interstate commerce. and there the chief justice , said, no, the congress does not have the power. they have been thinking about this commerce clause issue in some detail, but then once they , had a majority saying it was unconstitutional on commerce -- grounds, he had to see if it was unconstitutional or not on whether to impose taxes. i do not think he devoted a lot attention to that before hand. when he sat down and tried to write out an opinion, he concluded that given other aspects of his judicial philosophy the statute was constitutionally permissible as a tax. now, i think that did surprise his colleagues, but it is important to understand the supreme court processes.
3:44 pm
they hear the arguments and they gather for a conference which is an hour or two discussion, but there are nine of them. there are lots of views that have to be expressed. the affordable care act had a lot of issues involved. my guess is if the conference is -- it was vaguely indicated that it was not constitutional and did not focus on the aspects of the tax aspect that he ended up having to write up. reallyd say that nobody agrees with me. conservatives think he was threatened in some way. there were comments after the oral argument by vice president biden and senator reid and president obama about their expectations that the court would do the right thing. i do not think a chief justice would be intimidated by that.
3:45 pm
host: are there records of the conference that you talk about that we might see that might prove one way or another your thoughts here? guest: we will not include me. there are records. the justices keynotes. i can say that congress is closed to outsiders, just the justices. one of the traditions is if it's a message that has to be out, somebody knocks on the door and a junior justice gets up. i guess justice kagan and goes to the door and opens it and get the message and brings it back gives it to whomever the message is for. host: there are no cell phones. no cell phones. my guess is it would be really improper to answer a message,
3:46 pm
but they are taking notes, and those notes will go into their files, and 50 to 70 years from now, somebody will be able to see what those notes say. host: justice roberts famously said he had the job -- his job was to be like an umpire calling balls and strikes without did the affordable care act the decision go with that philosophy that he outlined? guest: i want to emphasize, he said people have probably made too much of the metaphor. he may have emphasized it too much because it does suggest a kind of mechanical aspects of judging which nobody really agrees there. i do think, as i put in the book, if you wanted to apply the umpire metaphor, he did sort of call of one strike and one ball.
3:47 pm
i do not know which is the strike and which is the ball. one way it was unconstitutional at it was constitutional. i think that was a result not of a neutral umpire but in the application that the chief justice brought to the job. host: on twitter -- the real tragedy is judges bring their political ideology to the court. guest: it is very hard -- as justice thomas put it in his confirmation hearing, stripped down like a runner and approach every case as if you have never thought about the underlying issues for the deep issues that are implicated in the case. after all, these people have been experienced lawyers and judges and they have handled cases. they have thought about these
3:48 pm
issues. it seems to me, it is a realistic to expect they will -- it is not realistic that they will simply discard them once they get to the court. in addition, of course, they are chosen, nominated, and then confirmed at least in part because of some sense on the part of the president of how they are going to approach cases , and that sense is what i have tried to characterize as their judicial philosophy. i do not think it is realistic that judges cannot or won't have these sorts of general views that they bring to bear on specific cases. host: to joe on the line for republicans. joe you are on with professor , tushnet, the author of the book "in the balance." on the roberts court. caller: arthur goldberg said of
3:49 pm
the constitution is not a suicide pact. i think the problem -- in the opposite direction from where you were going -- the supreme court justices think very little have very little working knowledge of technological issues like atomic bomb was developed during world war ii. one man lost his security clearance. there is lots more. there are genetically modified foods, technology, and other technologies, and all sorts of other technologies that the court is simply unprepared to deal with, and it has shown over and over. like this tax issue. obamacare, justice roberts opinion that it was a tax, if
3:50 pm
-- he is not doing any scenario work. these things move around. with regard to technology issues, what about peer- reviewed, qualified technologists for supreme court justices? and polygraph examiners on live tv to see if they have been improperly influenced? guest: i want to make two points. the affordable care act, once you characterize it as a tax, there are other issues that
3:51 pm
arise. several of them are continuing to be litigated in the lower carts. so far, none of them have advanced very far. they are still rattling around. the issue about technological change, he is clearly right. justice kagan, the court heard a case about regulation of violent video games. she made a comment about how amusing it was to see the younger law clerks talking about how you play a videogame. this is a fact of a combination of two things. our justices are appointed toward life terms. that is until they retire or forced to leave the bench because of illness or death. they are there for a long time. in combination, there is rapid technological change. so that somebody was appointed now in 2017 a let's say will be facing issues in 2057 that we cannot imagine.
3:52 pm
i do not know -- we have to go to science fiction to be robots to sit that have constitutional rights. -- do robots have constitutional rights? i do not know what the issues will be. probably reasonably clear when justice kennedy was appointed in the mid-1980's, i do not think anybody would've expected him to have any knowledge about genetic technology and patents on human genes. these have come to the court during his tenure. i have a colleague who suggested that one way to deal with these issues as to get away with the idea that all of the justices and every one of them can only be a lawyer. maybe he said, there should be people with other specialties.
3:53 pm
people with backgrounds in engineering, for example. host: let's talk about technological changes coming to the courts. your thoughts on putting cameras in the courtroom. guest: this is an issue i do not have any influence on. the justices have their minds unfairly stacked against it at this point. i do not think their fear that if they express are realistic. i think it would be a benefit for the court and the public more importantly to see and for people to think to see what is going on during these arguments. right now, we have the sketch artist who puts up snippets and reporters who get excerpt snippets. audio versions are released within the week of the argument. host: same-day audio now.
3:54 pm
guest: on important cases like the affordable care act. they did at the same day. and the transcripts are available the same day. loss woulde what the be from the court point of view of having cameras in there. host: if viewers want to check out more about these bands work on cameras in the courtroom, you can check out that at www.c- up next on the phone is larry from mississippi on the line for democrats. larry, good morning. you are on with the professor. caller: good morning, professor. professor, they voted foolishly. voting rights act. they elected bush. i just do not understand. guest: this is interesting fact
3:55 pm
that i want to mention. i do not want to say how -- from is fromignificant this an overall perspective. from the perspective of a constitutional lawyer, the court v gore is abush blip. it is not a matter of significance of constitutional law, but from the point of view of the public, there are two cases which are always mentioned when i give talks about the court. one is citizens united, and the other is bush against gore, and the reason for the latter is, of course, the view, not unrealistic, that an important reason for the presidency of george w. bush was the vote of the supreme court. was a very close election. a lot of people voted for george w. bush, but of the votes that
3:56 pm
mattered, as some call it, the five votes on the supreme court that resolve the controversy. now, from a constitutional point of view, bush against gore, a constitutional lawyer point of view, from the point of view of somebody interested in constitutional politics, the fact that the supreme court had the decisive role in making george w. bush president is, of course, is extremely important, but it is not something that i as a constitutional lawyer can say very much about. host: twitter, it was the worst ruling of our time and that includes the bush versus gore ruling which we all regret. , we are taking comments on twitter and facebook page is open. our phone lines are open. robert daniels had a trivia question.
3:57 pm
what is the shortest supreme court decision? guest: oh. some are extremely short. there are these things called pro. an opinions that are issued by the court. what you really have to ask is importante shortest supreme court decision or something like that, and i actually do not know what the candidates for that would be. the opinion in bush v gore was relatively short. under a deadline of 24 hours, so maybe that would but theent candidate, decision of brown versus the education finding school segregation unconstitutional was seven or eight pages long.
3:58 pm
it was not a tremendously long opinion. is the most important decision. i do not know. i would have to look at what the candidates would be. host: john is up next on the line for independence. you are on. caller: good morning. i wanted to say -- i consider you allld sit down with morning, talking to a constitutional attorney, but i want to get your opinion. first of all, i just want to say that a lot of people in d.c. do not follow the constitution, even though they took an oath to. aside from that, i want to ask you, and this is a projection. i have not been to the supreme court yet. what in the constitution gives obama the authority to remove a private industry ceo? second, what in the constitution has beenma, once a law made and it has been passed
3:59 pm
through and signed by him, that he cannot change? congress can only make amendments to the laws. the bottom line is i believe obama has overreached his authority much k much. it is progressive. he says he stands for change from democrats to progressives, because that is what has taken over the party. thank you, professor. i am not entirely sure what the reference to the removal of the ceo's is, but it may be under the recent financial reform legislation. i guess it is called the dodd- frank statute, and the other issue is the suspension of various, the enforcement of various provisions of the law. in both of those instances, the president's actions, at least the president's lawyers say that
4:00 pm
his actions are authorized by specific provisions in the statute or by a general authority of the executive branch to make decisions about what issues to pursue through enforcement actions, call prosecutorial discretion. everybody agrees that the president does not or that you as internees to not have to enforce every statue to the full extent of the law, whenever a drug violation calms, let's give this one a pass. it is not important enough to devote the energy to. we have more important anti- terrorism issues. there is that kind of discretion. argument that presidents do not have the there is that fought that presidents do not have the power to exempt this by category. my own view is that


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on