>> and all of that thinking to have shown through the world. it's what people but they don't realize how much we have to do remembering as a judge to every decision that you make there is a winner and there is a loser. people forget all losers because if they like the decision they think they are smart. [laughter] if they don't like what we've done they don't think we are
smart. they think we are lazy. how could they get this wrong or they think we are doing it based on policy. we want to do it our way he and it's so far from the truth. it is a skill. you are trained to look at issues in a legal way. it's based not on your personal likes or dislikes but on the tools interpretation so the process can seem boring to an outsider, to someone is completely. and the other half were interacting with the public. the supreme court gets visitors
from around the world. i have met with school children as young as second grade, grammar school, high school, college, professional, not just small school. students or would-be doctors, businessmen to really get visitors from one of the world, judges for more of the world that told you earlier read our cases and study the legal system as i travel, travel to law school and to the bar association's i want to teach
people about the wrong and why are so passionate about what i do. i can get them to understand the legal system a little bit better i hope they will become better citizens. they will work in the community and improving it for everyone. so we are busy on lots of different levels not just being in the courtroom. the hours the the lawyers have to argue cases before is a microcosm of the work that we've put in. >> the most popular question submitted was how did the justices get along.
[laughter] i'm wondering how what had the conference rituals and the way you build relationships? >> it starts with respect. if you come into this process appreciating that every single justice on the court has the passion and the loved and constitution and the country that people mind that if you accept that as an operating truth which is, you understand that you can disagree. you understand that you can disagree respectfully and sometimes passionate world's we
read the decisions because we really have a commitment to the answer that we think is right and as you all know from your personal relationships when people think they are right they can get really agitated but we do that in writing. in person we treat each other because we understand that and respect it and the borough the phrase and i hope i didn't choose to use those in my book but i used some as it's unavoidable. we spend more time with each other than any with our spouses
or friends because we work together every day of the week. we are doing our work in the office or elsewhere confident so when you spend that much time with each other, you figured out a way of how to love each other and disagree. it's what the family does every single day. try to figure out what movie you are going to go to on a friday or saturday. [laughter] >> i understand in your official conference he will take terms and we can't speak again until that all comes down to you. >> on friday we discuss the case is that we have heard and we have a wednesday.
we can take some time to talk about a case. no at the same page because sometimes they say the issue is this very often they say i disagree it should be this one. you have to stop there, okay. so he starts there and then he tells you why he didn't think the other side's argument. the senior charge in the years of tenure in this case it is justice scalia now. he says i either agree or if i do, i do on everything except i
think we should mention this. i don't think that one of those reasons is a reason. i think that we should enter the argument that way. she express's what he means and why and it goes down the line until it reaches the most junior justice of the class. they explain why they are dissenting and deciding why the other side is wrong and if there is someone that joins us and they will say yes but we should say this or know we shouldn't say that and by the time the conference when the writer of the opinion is ultimately assigned, the assignments are in the majority but he's not in the
majority then the next senior judge the voted the majority in the opinion and the dissenting group, the most senior judge. but by the time you sit down to write an opinion, you have a very out line of what your colleagues are thinking and it's your job to write an opinion that other people will join because you need five votes to brand. if you are on the trial court you have to write me. if you're on the appeals court there's three judges. your vote and the other day if you're on the supreme court you know how to suffice.
but you have to write so people will join your opinion the same with bud ascent you want to write so that you get everybody to say that you are right about the decision in so that is how the process of writing begins and you are not thinking of the way that i am. you have to write differently. the conclusion might be the same as a conference and the same happens among the dissenters not to dissenting for that reason but for this reason but we try to come together as groups as often as we can. >> yesterday's inauguration you were great.
[applause] the inauguration reminds us of the power of the constitution why does it work? it's remarkable a guiding document has worked for two and injured 23 years in the world's most diverse nation. why do you think it works? >> they wrote the document to last the ages, and the way they did that was to try not to define, but to use the terms that each generation could interpret to meet their needs and so one of the biggest issues
the court is constantly grappling with is this age of new technology what does an unreasonable search and seizure so we felt the cases about can the government fly over your home and use technology that emanates from your home? we have had questions about gps navigators and we will have many market and the forefathers had no idea and the computer chips would come in and benjamin
franklin i felt very much. [laughter] he never imagined these today. if they used terms that were more specific than they did, we wouldn't have been given the opportunity for the experience so they did a mixture of some very things. you can't do this, what did we forget about today you can't court of the militia in people's homes except in times of war. that's pretty specific but there were many other things.
it gives a concept as we are guided by that concept. >> what worries you about the constitution, are there any trends, issues that he might have gura on? [laughter] i don't think this is before they talk about it, but i will talk about one thing the recent elections in have any gratification about. our forefathers were citizens statesman. back then by the way they were all meant so that's why i use the word statesman. they were people who work of the
community they were in. they were the elite of our society to the they were businessmen, very successful scholars. they were people who had higher education's and they actually travel the world and learn from other cultures. the constitution was written by men who had studied the government's through history and other countries and picking and choosing from the various things that they saw describing the things they felt didn't work and coming up with creative solutions for the issues they thought hadn't been resolved by others. more people are voting now than they had in past years because
of worries me when the citizens for debt that it is their obligation not to let the country just happened, but to create a the country that they want. they tell me how did you feel about immigration lollies, the immigration law, how do you feel about the debate on the amendment and there are always questions like that would be called i generally have the cases i am still considering our that we have made up our mind because i haven't. but if i express an opinion, that is what they will believe. having said that what you can say to them is why are you asking me?
why aren't you asking yourself? what do you think? and what are you doing about it? if what you think is that you don't like something? because that is what this country was founded on. are people actually getting up and starting a war to change the country and create a new one? i'm not suggesting rebellion. [laughter] far from that, please. but i am encouraging the response of the. we should all be citizens. we should all be out there a riding of things that are important to us.
estimate last question. taking you back to your nomination come in the period from your nomination to your swearing in, to the supreme court was there a moment that stands out for you that was particularly meaningful? >> i think i spoke about it earlier, the moment when i realized how extraordinarily special my mother was. we take the people that we love throughout our life and we don't know how important they are to us. the special moments of all through the nomination process for that the plans for broke in the nomination process but one of my closest friends i watched
my brother be interviewed on television and he was describing me and he started to cry and in that moment like never before i knew my brother loved me. most of us to get the chance to see that or feel that accepting the moments of tragedy i got to feel it in a joyful moment. >> justice sotomayor thank you for this evening. [applause]
the professor emeritus of the university of maryland a former reporter for "the washington post." she's written a book one of the press, politics, prejudice and persistence. what was it like to write for "the washington post" in the 1960's and 70's? >> i was there from 1963 to 1973 and that is what prompted me to write the book because i remember there was a group of women and i remember how hard they have to work. some of them were so incredibly talented i knew the struggle they had to get assignments that were equal with men. i think it is interesting that tonight we are here the national press club and you are interviewing me right under the infamous balcony where the women were penned up during the 1960's
we were not allowed to sit down on the floor with the men and eat at the luncheon table even though the government had speakers at the press club and they had a policy of having the foreign dignitaries at the press club and so women who were assigned to cover these people were cooped up in this hot miserable balcony where they couldn't eat and here they could see the man on the floor having a nice lunch also they didn't have enough milk to but that was with the status of the women in those days there was a woman at the "washington post" i knew well who was taken off the prized civil-rights assignment at the post because the people that were involved in this civil
rights protest were going to have meetings here at the press club and because women were not allowed in the press club they were complaining about this and said we will find a man for this. that's the way things work to the estimate was your beat the "washington post"? >> i have a variety of beads at the washington post. i covered the suburbs in the city of alexandria and covered the course general sessions that was now the superior court and i covered welfare and i covered education, the d.c. public schools. i was on the metro staff. >> totally were you a reporter for the post that the university of maryland following the field for a long time. what is the difference now for the female reporters in the 1960's and 70's? >> there is a difference of course. i still at the university of
maryland. i am a graduate director of the college of journalism. we men have many more opportunities now than man but i still think it's harder for the women to fashion and the grass ceiling. one of the things in the book that i end with is how ironic it is that now women have the chance to be the leading figures in journalism and they have a chance to be the editors of the major newspapers. they have more chance than they used to have probably in television even. certainly in the print they have an opportunity. however, the business is changing. they got to the top of the field and then i crumbled under their feet. >> the author of one of the washington press, politics,
prejudice and persistence. thank you. >> thank you. >> he created a platform and the main components are at the center [inaudible] then it communicates by radio to take that data and send it back in the application. >> i think that we are of an inflection point. we've had all of these incremental and amazing changes over the last five years and now we are pleased and these complex
to they were very, very different. [inaudible] doing my best [inaudible] but it was all right. the first night they took me to buy food. we had no food. there was nothing in the shop and i got to the dingley wiggly and i was completely overcome. i had never seen chicken packed up like that running around.
president of the university of pennsylvania talked to book tv about her latest book "the spirit of compromise. she also talked about her role as president of the university. this interview recorded at the university of pennsylvania in philadelphia is part of book tv college series and it's about 20 minutes. you are watching book tv on c-span2 and one of the things we like to do is visit college campuses. we can talk to professors' letter authors and showcase books that he might not know about otherwise. we are pleased to be at the university of pennsylvania philadelphia joined by the president of the university, amy gutmann and she is the co-author of this book "the spirit of compromise with government
demands it and campaigning undermines it." president gutmann are we a completely compromising nation? >> we were created in compromise. a lot of people think of the revolutionary war which separate us from our mother country but if you recall historically speaking the founding fathers crafted a compromise that created the constitution, they were as polarized as any set of americans had been throughout the country in history there were pro and antislavery compromised so yes, we were funded and compromised but today compromise has become more difficult than ever before. >> what do you mean when you talk about the uncompromised mindset? >> we live in the era that has
been characterized as a permanent campaign where every day is election day, and campaigning in the elections take for uncompromising minds that you mobilize the base, deutsch rall endless amounts of money. the 24/7 news cycle covers politics if the horses are on steroids and all of the money is coming in from the campaigns. so, but what we mean by the uncompromising mind-set is a mind-set that is geared towards elections and not towards government. >> as we observe the changing scene in american politics we come to believe the general problem could be addressed by concentrating in particular institution, the united states congress. why is that? >> if you want to see the
problems the uncompromised mindset, look no further than the congress, the under 12 congress. gridlock nothing gets passed. the least legislation in the last 50 years and why? because everybody is campaigning all the time. there is very little by way of relationships across the aisle, and we went up to the brink of the debt ceiling crisis before compromise was reached which was routine so we thought that by focusing on the problem of the congress whose popularity is an all-time low as john mccain said you can account for the 9% popularity of congress during the debt ceiling crisis by blood relatives and paid staffers and we felt that by focusing on the converse, we could both diagnose the problem and give some prescriptions for how to
overcome it. its chemical is one of those prescriptions? >> one of those prescriptions is very simple which is congressmen need exercise, leadership by mixing mind sets by putting aside the campaign mindset long enough to govern and adopting the compromising mind set. in order to do that they need relationships so they can spend more time in washington and less time raising money and people will say that's going to hurt them in the next election but we say that the politicians didn't enter politics just to stand on principle. very few people said politicians were entrusted to politics because they were the most principled people in the population they were in the public's because they want the government that takes the leadership and relationships. we have a phrase that is
familiarity attend. there is no accident that ted kennedy and orrin hatch crafted a compromise. they were both strong partisans but the heavy spirit of compromise in the mind set and that is the main prescription for compromise. >> but if you look at senator hatch, he was pretty well threatened by the tea party with the primary and potentially being ousted from office because of his compromises. >> troup, and a compromise is difficult, government has become more and more difficult. however, if politicians when we remember orrin hatch we remember him for passing grade legislation to protect children with health care with ted kennedy. we are not going to remember the politicians for their cowardice, we are going to remember them for the courage. we are not going to remember them positively but for their courage so we are calling on the politicians to exercise leadership and we also talk about a set of reforms that
would make it easier to compromise reforming the filibuster, ( aires, the closed primary limiting the amount of money the problem is you can't get these reforms without compromise. so we all have our favorite reforms. politicians need to mix the mindset and lead and that is eminently possible. >> you write on restraining the rhetoric a third strategy of economizing on this agreement was designed to deal with the fact this agreement would persist on most issues and the space process is not always or doesn't usually yield an agreement, let alone the general consensus. what do you mean by economizing? >> what we mean is that we have a polarized politics right now, and if each side stands on its favorite principles, we will get
no compromise, no deals, we get gridlocks, economic disasters, and economizing on your principles means finding places well where you can concede something to the other side by finding ways on which your principles intersect with there's. it's what some people call common ground but but you're saying is it is not all common ground. it is agreeing that the riverside believes in that are consistent with moving ball forward according to your own principles. so we do this all the time when we make deals outside of politics. you look to what is most important for you to gain coming and you also get something to the riverside. >> so president gutmann, does the president of the united states have a role in this compromise?
>> the president -- i thought you were going to ask the president of pen. the president of united states obviously has a role and again, the president has to point in the direction of the principles, but the president also has to show by words and deeds that he is willing to make a compromise and i believe the president has in fact done that. >> how so? >> president has said it has reached out across the aisle various things with economic reform but tax reform, immigration reform. i don't have a crystal ball but i think that there is little doubt that the president would be willing to compromise if the other party is willing to meet him part of the way. but the other party's job is to see how much it can get for its
side and given the issues that we have been through such as the fiscal cliff, the fact is there's no way out of the issues without compromise but i do think that we will see compromise on something like immigration reform because demographics is destiny and the republicans as well as the democrats recognize that they have to share some support for the immigration reform if they are not going to in the case of the republicans lose the span of the population permanently. to the republican party. so, the president has already i believe shown a willingness to compromise, and all of the data shows that the republicans are the party that has moved to the right and the left although both parties are extreme, so i feel that we are going to see the president because he won the
election to be tougher rhetorically about not compromising although saying that he's open to compromise in order to see how far the republicans are willing to move. >> we are taking this interview in the middle of the so-called fiscal cliff to and how do you see january 1st -- how would you like to see january 1st come about? >> it is clear to the vast majority of americans, and i am with the vast majority of americans would like to see a compromise before the end of 2012 otherwise a lot of bad things will start to happen. it's not to me clear whether there will be one although that is a good recipe for compromise, but it is clear to me that if there isn't a compromise before, there will have to be after so
better sooner than later. >> president gutmann, does a president of the university of pennsylvania, a dozen besio, does a family member have to compromise on a daily basis? >> absolutely. when they do not want to compromise, one shouldn't want to compromise, one should be willing to compromise when necessary to achieve one's goal and that is true in personal relationships as well as politics and is certainly true all the time. edmund burke, the great conservative philosopher says all human relations are based on compromise, and i think that he's right. >> back to the spirit of compromise. one problem rejecting compromise in the hope of a better one to come is that it becomes an
obstacle to reaching the future compromise. estimate that is true today about politics that continual compromise in the continual demonization as political opponents in the political campaign has made the cover is difficult even when it is entirely and absolutely necessary to reduce the mcwhorter but the supreme court? do they ever compromise? >> one of the interesting things about the supreme court is that while they get reasons for their opinions, we don't get a window into the chamber and negotiation. that said it is clear that a compromise, and the 5-for decision on the affordable health care act where the judge chief justice roberts sided with the liberals on the court and
many people think it me of any compromise. now, rather the justices would never speak of the compromise is still full but if you look at how the justices came down and the pressure to craft a majority opinion is very plausible to think that decision was a compromise between interpretation of commerce clause or upholding the affordable care act. none of the letter decisions like compromises. >> who is dennis thompson? >> my wonderful kuhl author -- co-author. many years ago when we were both at princeton university, we've taught a course on efiks and federal policy and that led to less kosoff urning several books on the deliberation and the
democracy. >> in the spirit of compromise, president gutmann, you give the two legislative examples, the 1986 tax reform, health care that, and if you would walk us through those. >> so this is a tale of two compromises. and it begins with ronald reagan's presidency weare tax reform was a hugely important issue and hugely difficult issue to be done between republicans and democrats. those of us who live through the odierno recognize people thought they were very polarized on the staunch liberal democrat. rall riggins's staunch a liberal republican. yes, they crafted a bipartisan compromise with bill bradley and bob packwood being a part of the movers of the compromise.
fast forward to the affordable care act it was arguably even more difficult to craft a compromise within one party, the democratic party because of the permanent campaign and how not just polarized but the resistance of compromise the two parties were, so the comparison between the tax reform act helps us see how much more difficult to compromise is for the parties to get together to craft the kind of compromises on immigration, on tax reform, many other issues the country needs. >> is there a golden age of compromise? to the crises, 9/11, world war to lend themselves to political
compromise? >> compromise is always past. and the way that we should judge the ability of our politicians to compromise is what are the great goals that they have proceeded to get if they couldn't have without compromise. so the golden age if there was one and i am inclined to think there was never a golden age, but there was a very important age of compromise which founded this country so i would go back to the constitution for all but it's worth, and it had the evil of slavery. the constitution was made possible to abolish slavery. we have to remember was an article of the confederation that preceded the constitution and was then every state have the veto power over all
legislation so it was the establishment of the constitution of the united states that was established and compromised and made the abolition of slavery ultimately possible. >> speaking of compromise, if the fiscal, so-called fiscal cliff talks do not come to any kind of a conclusion if implemented have you looked at him you will have to compromise the university of pennsylvania held will affect the university of pennsylvania? >> if we were to go over the fiscal cliff and even more so, if there isn't a compromise that really is the wishes the american financial system on solid grounding to the vendor will be many ways in which but we will be compromised
compromise and are qualities. we depend upon the funding of the biomedical research to spur innovation and the country that would dry up. we are committed for all of our graduates and that costs about $180 million a year. that is twice the amount that was eight years ago because we ran out of financial aid, and the more unemployment there is in this country, the more that we spend on financial aid and would be a tragedy if the country moves in that direction to make education less affordable. so, we are very concerned about the fiscal health of the country
i enjoy teaching and i take every opportunity to meet with students to talk to students. i was at princeton for 28 years from the time i got my ph.d. to the time i came to ten and i was with the faculty of princeton and also provost as the chief academic and chief financial officer at princeton. the provost works very closely with the president. >> what is the learning curve on being the president of the university? >> well, the learning curve is for anybody and it's also very exciting. >> how many students find give us a primer. estimate university of pennsylvania has 10,000 undergraduates and $10 graduate students.
we have about 4500 faculty members. we run three hospitals and we have a great school of medicine as well as a great school of art and science. we have 32,000 employees, the largest private employer in philadelphia and we like to think of ourselves as ben franklin university, a university is that this in the lead but not a leader. we believe and integrating of which to maximize the social impact, and we are an economic innovation for the city, for the region, and for the country in the world. >> is this the original location that we are in? >> we are in the university city and the philadelphia area that originally started in was then a very small downtown city of philadelphia and what we call
the university city which we have helped me to a very vibrant arts and culture and economic club. >> once again a year is the book, it is the story of compromise with government demands it and campaigning undermines it. amy and gutmann and dennis thompson are the authors of it. this is book tv on c-span2. >> cure is a look at some books being published this week.
senior columnist for newsweek and the daily beast and political anchor of new york one. a colleague has written a second volume of the book deadline artists a collection of america's greatest ms. bigger column this one focusing on scandals of the tragedies and triumphs. >> we didn't even know about the scandal before it happened but this is the best book year because we didn't write it. >> that's indeed true. we went out and collected dozens
and dozens and settled on several dozens that were put together for people like to like newspaper columns. you can't find them all in one place so we did the ticking for you. >> it's a great american art form and you read people and realize this is literature this is the american art form, its literature and its history in the present tense and gives a perspective on our own times and our own scandals, tragedies and triumphs. you can read about earthquakes, floods come up with buckles candles or the way people were talking and thinking about it. the best writing about it at the time. >> i think that we think of our scandals and contemporary terms like there is no precedent. maybe you can close in on the scandals of the 40's, 40's and 50's. >> that is what the book does. but of the things they give a perspective on our own problem. so you know when you read about any of the scandals, and we have
doj simpson, the monica lewinski scandal and the al capone trial or the death of john dillinger. beautiful columns by steve and peggy noonan and michael daley but then jack london talking about the 1906 earthquake in san francisco and it has a sense of a perspective that we've visited a lot of this stuff before and great storytelling creates a perspective on our own problems. >> the destruction that is almost never talk about outside of texas puts to shame what's happened in new york with the hurricane. hundreds of thousands of people affected, destroyed and to read about it and see that there were people on the ground who knew about it and cared about it and were wondering at a time will anybody remember this and when the years have gone by it's
really important for people to get the perspective. >> when we balance the scandals and the tragedies as well it's amazing when you read the perfect game the column where he calls him the cinderella man that is later made into a movie has never been before. we found it in the new york public library you get these great inspiring stories along with the stories and scandals and you know what the news cycle was right now in the sex scandal it really does show you we've been through this stuff before. the details are always different but every regeneration plays the same story. for people who like to read through 200 or 300 comments after some postings maybe take a look at what other people had to say about the inhuman condition about politics, about the way things go in this country.
you can learn quite a lot and read them to act to the estimate of the media we look at the current media and we think it is structured to the point is there a columnist now that devotee reads and can have a discussion about or is it a point that we have our own small knishes of our interests and who we to into on the web or on cable television and then we go back and how our small discussion. it's been it's a great question, it's a great point in the introduction to the book it's beginning to be possible in the outlines the wave of walter lippmann has come for the civil commitment 20th century that particular perspective might be gone but the proliferation of the voices from the democratization of the opinion i think it's probably healthy in the long run but what this book shows us is that the folks that approach it from the highly partisan perspective, it becomes very predictable, almost like a
talking point memo, those will not last the matter with the column will not last, the storytelling. telling people stories come characters, the struggles against, those stories endure a and part of what if we have this book as journalists, working journalists, it shows the importance of the endurance of the column and at our form it isn't used as much as it was in the past but we really do depend on it and that object of the and subjectivity of the great storytelling with the personal perspective it's important to keep in mind now as always you can see people across the different platforms so we have a couple of columns in here and you can read them in the "boston globe" or see them on the morning joe. it's not as if the newspapers are completely divorced from the rest of the media at this point. we just appreciate people that know how to chile good story. they are not necessarily runners for the papers they are great
voices and all of them correspond to what we said these are short stories that really happened. >> final question, the subtitle is scandals, tragedies and triumphs. a scandal and tragedy hasn't always been that case? >> putting it together some of us of a tabloid background. the third co-editor and i used to write for the tabloids we gravitate towards scandal and towards tragedy and believe this is the second time we've done this and as we look for there's always a little scandal and tragedy but we did want something uplifting as well. we fought the battle a little bit and lost, she was right. you do want to tell the story of america. you have to talk about triumphant success. >> realize we are not being naive, this is scandals, tragedies and triumphs and
there's a reason people gravitate towards it and what's great about this book, the reason we came up with a title deadline artists, this was on a time line on the improv for for and it's done every day. it's incorporated like never before but i do think it's important to end with triumph, to end with something redemptive and positive. that sort of our moral compass going forth that we always pick up the paper to find out the latest scandal or tragedy. it's the triumphs that are redemptive at the end of the day and it's important after to read >> john avlon, errol louis author of a deadline artists scandals, tragedies and triumphs. thank you very much. >> i can't count the times that americans say that we are the best country in the world. with a marvelously stupid thing to say. of all the countries in the wo