including the supreme court. he is a frequent public commentator issues and perhaps the most gifted translator legalese into plain english. [laughter] which the public oppose him a huge debt of gratitude. >> caller. >> thank you. let me start by thanking the tucson festival of books for having me and for all of you for coming it is enormously gratifying for me as an author but to see so many people on a beautiful afternoon coming to hear about the supreme court and the constitution is wonderful. [applause] thank-you. i will tell a story that the book begins wi book begins with. i was tearoming a case thatrgera you're very familiar with, buck versus doll. it involves a woman by the namea of carrie buck, as she by allrgl accounts had a normal childhoodw she went to the normal publicrga phhools her father left herrg3 mother, her mother wasd destitute. her mother had no choice but foa carrie and put her foster home.a when carrie was 17 she was rgera raised by her foster fathefirsra neifon, .rgera gary became pregnant

he talks about the supreme court's new term. , when did youuro start covering the supreme court? actually1979, which is longer ago than any of the court justices have set on the court. so i have -- sat on the court. so i have been there awhile. brian: what brought you there? tony: i went to law school for a brilliant four week career and then i went into journalism and i was transferred to washington and my editor said if i could handle the new jersey supreme court, i could handle the u.s. supreme court. i have covered it ever since and it is the best beat in town. brian: why? tony: because there is such for friday that we have to cover. we have a death penalty case one day, same-sex marriage, you know, some of the biggest issues facing the country. it is never boring. the other thing is, unlike the white house beat and the congressional beat, we are not really dealing with politicians in the same sense that they are politicians. the justices are not elected. they actually have very little interest, generally, in talking with the press. but they are trying to solve these problems

the supreme court. >> the cases in public. the most important witness in the case is marshall. from a certain point of view, do not do this at home. he should not have been in the case. there is one person who knows that the seal of the united states was on the commission. that is john marshall. james marshall, his brother, submits that the affidavit that says, "i think that marbury was one of the commissions i was supposed to deliver and i am not exact a sure -- exactly sure." >> two of the justices were not there. it took 4 to have a quorum and that led to an issue. host: how many days did the trial take place question mark >> over two days -- take place? >> over two days. by today's standards, a short span of time. at the time, the public was wondering what was taking so long. the supreme court tended to issue rulings very quickly in short opinions. one the practices john marshall began was opinions for the court, as opposed to each justice giving a quick opinion. it was a short span of a couple of w

including the supreme court. a frequent public commentator on issues and perhaps the most gifted translator legalese into plain english. [laughter] which the public oppose him a huge debt of gratitude. >> caller. >> thank you. let me start by thanking the tucson festival of books for having me and for all of you for coming it is enormously gratifying for me as an author but to see so many people on a beautiful afternoon coming to hear about the supreme court and the constitution is wonderful. [applause] thank-you. i will tell a story that the book begins with. i was teaching with acacia were very familiar with that involves a woman born 1906 and charlottesville virginia with a normal childhood show to local public schools through junior high and always received passing grades. her father left her mother her mother was destitute and had no choice but to place the girls in foster homes. when she was 17 she was raped by her foster father's nephew became pregnant as a result. the foster parents were embarrassed by he

my comment is on the supreme court. the supreme court is the highest court in the land. i love their values. values are the interpretation of the constitution, but what i is the supreme court is they do not have extremists. in the country today, congress is doing an excellent job. but the congress has gone from republicans and democrats to now tea parties and other parties and the liberals and the conservatives. that will make an opportunity for there to be so much explanation that you are not getting your job done. the supreme court has stayed pure. i think it is good they have nine people that basically are doing what they are supposed to be doing, interpreting the constitution, which is a good thing. i believe anything that they say and i think it is great that they are taking selected cases. i have no problem with the supreme court. i know that they will evaluate it and see whether you or whoever is posing the question is disputing the laws of the land because the laws of the land is what will keep things at a normal pace and be for the good of the law. i thank you v

by the time we get to the supreme court later on in our story, we have a former supreme court justice who resigns to fight for the confederacy arguing before his former colleagues and here is another dynamic. justice miller loathes john campbell. paul: this is something we have not seen in the modern era. for someone to leave the court and appear in front of the court. obviously, the justices are going to decide these cases, and they're going to decide them based on their view of the law. but you cannot help but imagine that the personalities have something to do with it. and i think that when you have somebody arguing a case, that one of the justices has an intense, not personal, but political dislike, the view of leaving the court to join the confederacy is something that justice miller cannot really forgive. to be hearing this argument from that particular advocate has to change the dynamic in a way that that justice and some of the others are processing the case and the argument that they are hearing. host: time to learn about what got this case into litigation. we are to visit ne

the supreme court is coming after me. in fact, it contained all of the speeches that she had given about o'connor after o'connor retired. and a nice note. and so i feel like, like, you know, i think that she wanted to cooperate. if you look at their record which is all on youtube, you will see that they tell the same stories over and over again's. they have their lives down pat, and it is hard to get them to reveal anymore's. i don't feel like i was that much because it made me work harder. if there are mistakes it is their fault. [laughter] >> thank you very much. >> i have noti have not read your book, but i'm looking forward to it. as you look at the body of work and uss it along the lines of looking back at some one like oliver wendell holmes, do you think one century from now there work will be incredibly strong and work that will be viewed as really very important? 's. >> you know, they call this war on corporate money. i thought about this a lot. and i know a little bit about their jurisprudence because one of the

court, that the supreme court really should be a big issue in the presidential campaign. now you have four justices in their upper 70's or 80's going into the next term of president. for actuarial reasons, it seems possible, likely, perhaps, that at least one or two justices will depart in one way or another. in those four years. so, the public really should be thinking about that one when they decide who to vote for. brian: we have about 16 months or so until the next congress comes in and after we go through a presidential election and all that. if somebody were to leave the court today, what is your guests -- guess? would congress approve a supreme court approval -- appointment? tony: i suppose president obama would be able to get someone through. it might not be his first choice because i think it would have to be someone very moderate or a middle of the road justice in order to get the votes you would need from the senate to confirm that person. but i think the later it gets, the more likely the senate republicans would just sit on the nomination and just ignore it u

my comment is on the supreme court. the supreme court is the highest court in the land. i love their values. values are the interpretation of the constitution, but what i is the supreme court is they do not have extremists. in the country today, congress is doing an excellent job. but the congress has gone from republicans and democrats to now tea parties and other parties and the liberals and the conservatives. that will make an opportunity for there to be so much explanation that you are not getting your job done. the supreme court has stayed pure. i think it is good they have nine people that basically are doing what they are supposed to be doing, interpreting the constitution, which is a good thing. i believe anything that they say and i think it is great that they are taking selected cases. i have no problem with the supreme court. i know that they will evaluate it and see whether you or whoever is posing the question is disputing the laws of the land because the laws of the land is what will keep things at a normal pace and be for the good of the law. i thank you v

he says courts, not the supreme court. there's not a wording in the opinion that really is about the unique powers of the supreme court opposed to all the other judges in the system. note also he says as well as other departments. we today have tended to read marbury as if he's making unique claim about how only courts are only the supreme court in context i do think marbury is actually better read as saying courts along with other folks are bound by the constitution and just as, you know, a congress can't tell us how we have to rule, there are certain domains in which other branches of government might be able to make independent constitutional determinations like jacksonp vetoing the bank bill or jefferson pardoning the sedition act convicts. >> well, i do think he is saying very clearly that at all of the departments do have a responsibility to evaluate the constitutionality. but at the end of the day, the final word, it is 'em fattically the judicial department to say the law. that's the heart of marbury and that's wh

he says courts, not the supreme court. there is not a worthy opinion about the unique powers of the supreme court as opposed to all of the other judges in the system. notice he says as well as other departments. reading marbury as if they claim to make unique things about the supreme court. i think marbury is better read as saying court, along with other folks, are bound by the -- and jackson vetoing the bank bill were jefferson -- or jefferson pardoning the sedition convict. >> i think he is saying clearly haveall of the departments a responsibility to evaluate constitutionality. at the end of the day, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. that is the heart of marbury and that is why it has been beaconed in our own history and supreme great stress,s of nixon's tapes, brown versus board of education, it is emphatically the province of the judicial department. john marshall, single chase, william paterson, and washington read in the opinion. it is hard to imagine it was

he talks about the supreme court's new term. , when did youuro start covering the supreme court? tony: in 1979, which is

disapprove of the supreme court. 45% saying they approve of the job the supreme court is doing. are you surprised by that 45%? think the united states is divided fairly evenly into two sections, one being democrat and another being republican. i think the polls show the people in the united states are 50-50. two parties is the way to go. more parties might be a better idea and give us a broader spectrum. i am a little bit surprised that half the people say the supreme court is doing a good job. i think they endeavor to be fair but i have no idea why they came up with the idea that you can buy a vote in that is ok. that is beyond me and i have given up on the supreme court after that. host: we are showing our viewers live pictures this morning of the supreme court where people are lining up, waiting to go inside the court on its opening day of the new term. sandy is up next, line for independence. ts. caller: good morning. i love your programming. i agree with the man earlier from california. the supreme court did a bad in justice when they put our government up for sale. i think

supreme court in that time? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> well, i mean certainly i think to the extent that the question is alludeding to the fact that you had not just the idea of the carpet baggers coming down there, but there were also efforts at the same time to project federal power to protect everyone, but particularly the recently freed slaves from being subjected to violence by others down in the south. i mean that is a part of this period of constitutional history. there's the crook shank case that hopefully we'll get to mention at least in passing that was involved in an application of one of those civil rights statutes to a situation also coming out of louisiana. so those cases also came to the supreme court at the same time. and if you want to put a slightly broader kind of historical context here, what the supreme court is wrestling with during this period is not just this particular case and what to do with the reconstruction amendment. i think they're also dealing with the reality

supreme court -- bust of roger taney to be placed in the u.s. supreme court. today, these questions are of course cloaked in 21st century terms, a movement called black lives matter, controversy over the flying of the confederate flag in the united states, and taney's likeness is once again said by some to symbolize or glorify a past that should not be honored in this public way. at this statehouse in maryland, we have two of them monuments because in 1996, we get thurgood marshall. two of marilyn's great supreme court justices are side-by-side, but clearly somebody over the weekend in frederick had a different idea about how to publicly an act is there could -- enact their critique. host: what should his legacy be? christopher: he doesn't have a choice in the matter. tied dred scott, he has himself to this pro-slavery nationalist movement so tightly, that movement dies with the confederacy and so these are forever linked. engaged in fairly dishonest representations of history at the highest levels of government, at the highest level of the court. that cannot

what makes these cases significant is they go all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court addresses some thing that is profound and lasting. one of the things i want to share is this is not lost on the justices deciding the case. this does not strike them as just another case about how you other sanitation problems. justice miller in his own opinion sends this -- no question -- he is essentially starting out by saying this is the single most important case any of us have heard. host: mary is watching in purpose chris christie. caller: hello. my question is a directed to professor ross. who is attributed to the world educated african creole community and also to the andation of oscar dunn hatchback? michael: what had happened in there were a few public schools. notafro creoles were schooled there. some sent their kids to the north. .t was all done i wanted to get another point in. omaha, things get solved over time because it's an efficient place. getsw orleans, nothing done -- no offense. i love you and i have your back but if the legislature didn't act, there would still

he had argued before the supreme court. he saw the error and he actually agree to let to the writ of error go through. when i was alerted to the fact had been charged with practicing law without license, i tried to find out when he got the license. -- courto the cart charged with determining that, and i asked any name spelling that i could find, no henry weismann was ever licensed to practice law in new york. , the case was closed to never getting to the court. never way, weismann called himself an attorney. argue get the right to before the supreme court. turns out to be one of the interesting characters in this entire story. he starts out organizing the union, somewhat responsible for passage of the law, then switches sides and takes the case to the supreme court defending lochner. can you tell us a bit about the court? it has a reputation of being a conservative court. randy: there are justices put on there by teddy roosevelt, other itsidents, and in fact -- upheld economic regulations before the lochner case, so it wasn

where he is chair of the appellate supreme court practice and he has had an active supreme court practice for three decades including oral arguments in 16 supreme court cases involving matters from free speech, civil rights, to civil procedures. and lawrence v texas, the landmark gay rights case, and brown vs merchant are some of the biggest cases he has fought. so with all that, i am going to turn it over to mike to start hearing how our rulers intend to govern us over the next year. >> well, hopefully it will be a little different than last term. i will discuss friedrichs, which without prejudice, i think it is the most important case that has been graded so far and i mean it because it involves the free speech rights of tens of thousands of federal employees. the supreme court upheld the right of states, and 20 or so do it, requiring non-members of unions to pay what they call agencies fees which is the equivalent of union dues even though they decided not to associate with the union. this is contrary to the principle you cannot be compelled to associate with associations with whom you

supreme court justices in history. principally i believe for his clear and present danger opinion i would like to contrast justice holmes with your book the structure of liberty were you when it's relationship between libertarianism and classical liberalism. would you say that's as you indicate in your book the private adjudication and enforcement of law is the only legal system that can provide adequate solutions to problems of interest in power? do you believe justice holmes would sign on to that theory that youstions mark >> find short answer for that pocket a question? >> based on an accurate reading of my book. this is young the scope of this program, but the color has read this book and successfully applied the book to this particular question. but right now what we are concerned about is what the u.s. constitution provides, not what some internet of legal system i talk about in that could provide, and whether the constitution and 14th amendment in particular would be consistent with these health and safety regul

he says courts, not the supreme court. there is not a worthy opinion about the unique powers of the . supreme court as opposed to all of the other judges in the system. notice he says as well as other departments. we have tended to read marbury as if he is making a unique claim that it's the supreme court in context. i think marbury is better read as saying court, along with other folks, are bound by the upreme court as opposed to all constitution and congress can't tell us how we have to rule, there are domains in which other branches of government might be to make independent bank ackson vetoing the bill or jefferson pardoning the sedition act convicts. >> i think he is saying clearly that all of the departments have a responsibility to evaluate constitutionality. at the end of the day, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. that is the heart of marbury nd that is why it has been beaconed in our own history and supreme court, in times of great stress, nixon's tapes, br

what goes on in the supreme tiow court. we'll see that by the end of this term.o say a that's a prediction i will makes >> all right, mike, do you wantn to say anything about those cases? in on the ulatinigh harris case that paul's doing.fw and look, just to make sure we understand what's going on. arizona was underpopulating theb districts with the fewest then citizens. in other words, b it was exacerbating the problem.unde their votes were already worth more, and by overpopulating them, they made them worth thati much more. which is a serious issue, but the truth is, and, again, it will be interesting to see how the conservatives on the court react to this, and i'll probably never be invited back to the rnc after i see it. the 10% thing, total populationt is, by definition, an incrediblf rough proxy for voting power. so the court, i thought, was pretty consistent saying, look,u if you get it in the 10%, that'a close enough. all of this is close enough for government work.d but then there was this summary affirmance from a

this is the worst case that the supreme court has decided. i would have said plessy versus ferguson because it continued longer. and also, i don't know if you can answer this. i don't believe you are doing plessy in this series. i want to know why you aren't doing that case? host: we have 12 weeks and thousands of cases. so we have spent a lot of time over which cases would be our landmark cases knowing we couldn't do all. we are thinking about next year. but plessy versus ferguson. guest guest i think the caller is right, plessy versus fug uson was a terrible decision. dread scott versus sand forward was the worse. and not that these cases aren't political at time but engage in politics and what we see in dred scott is really a court reaching out and deciding a political question and deciding it wrong. plessy versus ferguson has a lot of wrongs. but i would stand pat on my claim that dred scott is the most atrocious of the supreme court decisions. host: there were 331 freedom cases in missouri, how many or what percentage of them were succes

supreme court begin its next term today. this morning, washington journal hosted a roundtable discussion on the high court. of the keyed at some cases the justices will debate and examine some of the major decisions from the previous term. of thepening day new term of supreme court we are joined by nan aron, president of the alliance for justice and carrie severino, counsel and polity -- policy director for the judicial crisis network. with the samegin question we asked our viewers today. do you think the court has become too political? think we want justices that are not going to be political. we want people looking at just the law not inserting political beliefs. but unfortunately that does happen a lot. unfortunately it happens particularly with the liberal wing of the court. a lot of their judicial philosophy actually invites people to bring in their political views to review the case. that would be the obamacare case recently. toef justice robert's vote save obamacare was based on political reasons rather than a neutral

i would agree to abolish the supreme court myself. thank you. the right ofsue of voters versus the constitutional interpretations made by the supreme court is an ongoing issue. we have seen for example in the presidential race, senator ted cruz bring that up a lot when talking about the same-sex marriage case and that it is up to the people to decide what the law should be on the state level as opposed to this unelected what or not the constitution says. currently, the court is made up -- our system of government is made up where the court is the final word in what constitutional law is. one of the great series of landmark cases that c-span is doing now. they took a look at the marbury versus madison case and saw exactly how that came to be. it is one of the most substantial rulings that the supreme court made, establishing that law. that changes in that will be the final word in constitutional issues, even on issues where voters might be divided. ont: the series is 9:00 monday night. they're taking a look at dread scott. for more information, t

. >>> and a new term for the supreme court. on the agenda, cases ranging from abortion to voting rights. >> and shooting the rapids in west virginia. along one of the most exciting rivers in the world but only for a brief window of time. >>> for the first time, we're hearing from the father of the gunman who killed nine people last week in umpqua community college in oregon. ian mercer is blaming lax gun laws for the tragedy. meanwhile, the community turns to the church for healing. many of the victims remembered at church services throughout the region on sunday. >>reporter: outside at businesses in roseburg. >> god's was the first heart to break. >>reporter: and inside places of worship, a community is coming together to support each other in one of their darkest hours. words of comfort to church goers. >> someone hell bent on killing others is going to look for way to do that. i for one, as a follower of jesus, i dare say why should we make these malevolent schemes easier with easy access to firearms? we can do better. for g

host: why did it go on to the missouri supreme court? guest: that takes us back to a fundamental question, which is why 1846? dredhas happened that waits as long as they do? the main thing is those girls. we know that they have their two young daughters, and something changes. throughout legislation, the scotts keep the girls and hiding. my sentiment is that they are prepared, if necessary, to defy a court order and sneak them out of st. louis rather than see them and slaved. -- enslaved. they are terribly vulnerable as they grow up, african-american and slaved girls. their vote -- enslaved girls. toy are vulnerable not only slaves but to sexual assault. but what happens is, they win. a jury of white men in st. louis declares them free people. because thisected, case has been heard hundreds of times before, and generally the rule of law in missouri, is that once an enslaved person has lived on free soil, that he or she becomes a free person even when they return to the slave state of missouri. host: so why does it not end there? guest: i

particularly for the supreme court and circuit court judges. not so much for district court judges. this is bad for the country. because i think that if you go 200 years without the selection of judges and approval by the supreme court inc. so -- i mean approval by the congress being so political, we got along pretty good for those 200 years. tags and other question about the selection of supreme court justices, throughout history it has not always been necessary for supreme court justices to be lawyers. you yourself are not a lawyer. unusual but not exclusive. these days, is it absolutely necessary for a superb -- supreme court justice to be a lawyer? sen. grassley: i think so. i know the law does not require it, i think only once in our history a justice from lee county, iowa, was appointed by lincoln or someone succeeding lincoln will stop i think they eventually ended up being considered lawyers by how lawyers were created in those days, reading the law and getting approval. i think he was a medical doctor at one time. other than that, every justice out of the 120 or so that hav

supreme court justices in history. principally i believe for his clear and present danger opinion and shake versus the united states. united states. i would like to contrast justice holmes with your book, the structure of liberty, where you emphasized the relationship between libertarianism and classic liberalism. would you say, as indicated in your book, that the private adjudication and enforcement of law is the only legal system that can provide adequate solutions to problems of interest and power, and do you believe justice holmes would sign on to that theory today? susan: thank you. it sounds like it could be a masters thesis. could you find a short answer? randy: it is based on accurate reading of my book. this is really beyond the scope of this program. but the caller has read this book and successfully applied the book to this particular question, but right now what we are concerned about is what the u.s. constitution provides, not what some alternative legal system would provide, and whether they constitution

my comment is on the supreme court. the supreme court is the highest court in the land. i love their values. values are the interpretation of the constitution, but what i is the supreme court is they do not have extremists. in the country today, congress is doing an excellent job. but the congress has gone from republicans and democrats to now tea parties and other parties and the liberals and the conservatives. that will make an opportunity for there to be so much explanation that you are not getting your job done. the supreme court has stayed pure. i think it is good they have nine people that basically are doing what they are supposed to be doing, interpreting the constitution, which is a good thing. i believe anything that they say and i think it is great that they are taking selected cases. i have no problem with the supreme court. i know that they will evaluate it and see whether you or whoever is posing the question is disputing the laws of the land because the laws of the land is what will keep things at a normal pace and be for the good of the law. i thank you v

historic supreme court decisions. we take a look at the real story behind the famous marbury v. madison case, delving into the heated political battles between john adams, thomas jefferson and the newly-appointed chief justice, john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. in his famous decision he wrote in marbury v. madison. >> marbury and madison is probably the most famous case court ever decided. >> joining the discussion, yale law school professor and author iowa keel reid amar. landmark cases, exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by reviewing the life and times of the people in these cases. landmark cases premieres live this monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. and for background while you watch, order your copy of the companion book. it's available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >>

supreme court begins a new term on monday. voting rights, affirmative action and the death penalty are all on the docket. the justices may decide to also take cases on contraception and abortion. last term same-sex marriage was nationally legalized, at fordable care act were upheld. this term more big decisions will likely be made. to talk about these issues, adam liptak of the new york times is in washington. and jeffrey toobin of the new yorker and cnn is with me here in new york. i am pleased to have both of them. let me go first to adam. what does this look like, adam? what are the things that we ought to take note of in the first monday in october. >> well, the big picture is that last year, last term, the left side of the court had a very good year. a lot of liberal decisions. a lot of liberal victories. this term the early signs are that the empire strikes back, that the conservative roberts court we know will deliver some more conservative opinions, justice kennedy still in the middle but i expect him to swing right ra

supreme court. supreme court decisions on major cases from brown to the board of education to bush versus gore have significantly changed american society and changed history. gideon versus wainwright, roe versus wade, king versus burwell. same-sexs case, marriage guaranteed under equal protection. these are important parts of our history. the historical point alone, how touable for our kids to be a watch the arguments in a case like brown versus the board of education in historical context? due to antiquated practices and policies, we have no video record of these historic decisions. and innovativew technology at our fingertips, it is time that we use every tool available to preserve america's judicial history. i was proud to introduce the cameras in the courtroom act with threat presented of connolly -- representative connolly. proud to be part of the act which includes provisions requiring the supreme court provide video and audio of its proceedings. i'm happy to introduce with representative nad

supreme court decisions. we take a look at the real story behind the famous marbury v madison case, delving into the heating battles between outgoing thomas jefferson, and newly appointed chief justice john marshall. >> he established that the interpreter of the constitution, in his famous decision. >> marbury v madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joining the discussion, law school professor and discuss her, and an author. landmark cases, if going 12 -- exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings. landmark cases premieres live this monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern and c-spanc-span3, radio. for background on each case, order your copy of glenmark cases companion book, for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases. all weekend long, american history tv is joining our comcast cable partners to showcase the history of santa rosa, california. to learn more about the city's on our 2015 to her, -- tour, visit c-span.org/citiestour. we continue with a look at santa rosa. sonoma coun

ultimately the supreme court. before we do that, it's time to take your calls. we're going to begin with a call from joe watching us in pittsburgh. joe, you're on the air. what's your question? >>> i'm interested in the two attorneys that defended dred scott. montgomery blare and roswell field, from st. louis. >> thanks. i'm going to ask our guests to spend a little time because when we get to the part of the story, we'll spend more. the montgomery blare being the more famous of the two. what can you tell us about him? >> i want to point out quickly. montgomery blare is a marylander, like roger taney, a former slave hold who are has a different view ultimately of how dred scott should turn out. when we get to the supreme court, it's a contest. marylander against marylander. >> next is from california. jim is watching us there. you're on the air. >> thank you for this series. several questions. thanks specifically to the two guests here. very, very interesting. i'm a former retired attorney, and last time, i think,

until the supreme court leader who holds supreme court power in iran. they said the parliament should review the deal. then it underwent some debate in the parliament. ultimately they approved it. even after they approve it, it has to get subsequently approved by an appointed council. a council of guardians. the process doesn't move anything like it. it is not as routine or regular as our process. it is a more ad hoc process. host: the steps now the steps that we the united states end the p5 plus one will be able to take and observe the iranians are living up to their end of the bargain. what do they include? michael: the steps the iranians need to take to get their nuclear program to what will be the steady state over the next eight to ten years. they need to go from where they are now which is a robust nuclear program to the sort of lesser program that president obama has touted as the key benefit of the deal. so that again involves taking out the core of their plutonium producing heavy water reactor so it can't produce all of the plutonium. it means

he's argued before the supreme court. randy barnett, thank you for being with us. >> great. >> paul kens actually wrote the book on locker in, his book, "economic regulations on trial," his home base is texas states university where he teaches political science. thanks. well, i'm telling people they should be interested in this. why don't you explain why, both of you. why is this case important? >> well, the case has become a symbol in -- a political symbol. it was made into a political symbol by teddy roosevelt when he ran for president in 1912. it was about how roosevelt claimed that the court had overreached and overstepped its bounds to block progressive legislation from being enacted at the state level. ever since then, it's been a political flashpoint. it was made a political flash its point in a presidential campaign. >> political flashpoint for which side? >> well, roosevelt claim e eed laissez faire economics. he was extolling holmes as the modicum of what just should be when -- he put him on the court when he wa

supreme court.e' >> you mentioned people's view of the court.view how much do you think people's t view of the court this term is going to be scene through the prism of the same-sex marriage case last term and the health care case? >> i certainly think those two h cases have dominated the debate since june when they were released, but i think going forward -- we just heard adam liptack on your program.ink i'm sowe pleased that c-span iso going to be having other programs on the court. i think we're going to learn a lot more about this court. it's not just two decisions or three decisions from last term, but this court, as adam explained, is granted a number of hot button cases. and i do think these cases and the decision the court renders will influence public opinion over the next year. >> if some of our viewers want to learn about some of our cases before the supreme court, our "landmark cases" supreme court series begins tonight at 9:00 on c-span. the kickoff to a 12-part prograo on c-span.alking

i think it damaged the supreme court. host: one of the other consistencies of the series, is four of the cases we have chosen have to deal with the 14th amendment. is that coincidental? on 14thhe court taken amendment cases more friendly? sen. leahy: is interesting. rs now since the second founding. host: why do you call it that? sen. leahy: well, i think we had the founding, with the initial fathers. those cherries of remembrance came through. that united states became more aware of what they are, and more aware of the fact that slavery was ending and so on, that we had to treat all people the same. know, it took a long time, and in some places in this country it is still going on. it was a second coming of the united states. why they picked so many, i really don't know. i do know, even among those who claimed to be strict constructionists, they have gone way off the reservation. citizens united. are say that corporations citizens. if you push that to what it means, then general eisenhower president,d why can't we elect

particularly state supreme courts that are engaged in this campaign of objections of the supreme court's recent cases impleme implementing the federal arbitration act. this case is the latest in the line of cases that often involve supreme court contorting principles of state law in order to avoid remitting parties to arbitration. so i am sure this case is headed for a reversal for precisely that reason. but if you are in a private practice you will encounter this and it is cases from courts across the country where the lower courts are out of sync with the supreme court. >> we are going to take three minutes each, if we could, to talk about some of the cases on the horizon for the supreme court. we will go in the same order so starting with mike. >> i tried to find more about the jones day case. i was unsuccessful. i think the case that is clearly going up to the court are the mandatory contruceptive cases where the religious organizations are challenging the obamacare requirement which is a follow on to the hobby lobby case that involved an employer that was religious. this is the reli

why are supreme court cases not televised? >> guest: i think it will remain untelevised until you get all nine to agree. but the justice say if you take little bits of oral arguments and put it into sound bites it will distort what the body is about. it might encourage the justice not to say things during the argument when they should be ask questions to get to the core of the cases. it is tough. it is an institution where you are one of the folks inside the 300 seats inside the court you don't see what is happening. all you see is what we as journalist who get to be in there write about. i think it a tough case to make. increasingly more people are seeking to have the court open. in congress it is the same thing. congress has been televised for years and the walls didn't come down. as more justice are named maybe more will warm. >> host: any of the current warm of the nine? >> guest: not really. even justice kagan and sotomayor who were for it when first signed on they are now against it. >> host: our guest is a editor for th

of theideological center supreme court used to be 2-3 justices. when you would argue to the court, you would look around a little bit, because you thought several votes were in play. now, you speak to anthony kennedy. charlie rose: who is the smartest person on the court? >> they are all smart. they really are. i'm not finished. i think roberts is the smartest, in terms of role. >> he is a raw intellectual and he has written better opinions. in terms of mastery of the information -- charlie rose: in terms of overall power, scalia. >> in terms of raw power -- however you want to define it, -- it is still that early in her tenure but, kagan. seems to have a real interest in business. >> yes. that is something i view as a mistake, on my part. i have not emphasized that enough in describing the roberts court, particularly with lawsuits against businesses. if it is an individual on one side and a corporation on the certainty, i can tell you who is going to win. personally do not like injury lawyers, personal lawsuits, civil litigation. it is very pro-b

this court has jurisdiction to hear henry montgomery's claim because the louisiana supreme court relied exclusively on federal juris prudence. in miller this court held that mandatory life in prison was unconstitutional. it also held that life in prison would be an uncommon, rash sentence even today. >> isn't it just like a state saying, we have a fourth amendment, and the federal constitution has a fourth amendment. we are going to apply our own constitution, but in applying it, we will follow the federal precedent. i think we would say, in that case, the case has been decided on the state constitutional ground, even though the state court, in interpreting that ground, is looking to federal decisions. >> in this case, your honor, the louisiana supreme court did not state that it was exercising any independent grounds at all. under michigan v long -- >> i thought that the case is cited said that. the case -- i thought it cited an earlier louisiana supreme court case, which made it very clear that it was following the federal rule as a matter of discretion and not because -- not because

the supreme court let that ruling stand. charlie rose: it was overturned. >> the insider trading cases may be harder to make as a result. non-decision. >> is the supreme court as exciting as it always has been? >> i think it is in a holding pattern as we wait for the generational turnover. vacancies tend to come in groups. yes it is true that john paul , stevens served until he was 90. so i suppose all of these justices in their late 70's and early 80's could wait until chelsea clinton is president to lead. but, i think it is likely that several of them will leave in the next few years. charlie rose: especially -- let's see, i said who it was. >> ginsburg is 83 and scalia is 79 now. >> breyer is 77. you have four likely candidates to go. depending on the alignment, if they are public and gets to replace one of the democratic appointees or vice versa, that changes the fabric of american life. >> i asked to as the smartest, who is the best writer? >> i said roberts. kagan is a good writer. as someone who did not write a lot as