hands to show that we're not holding a weapon in our right hand. cultures use intoxicants at treaty meetings or business meetings, anything where you potentially hostile people need to figure out a way to cooperate as a kind of cognitive disarmament. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. ♪♪ get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest political events live or on demand any time, anywhere on our new mobile video app. c-span now, access top highlights, listen to c-span radio, and discover new podcasts all for free. download c-span now today. hello. welcome to another addition of at home with the roosevelts.

i'm the director of the franklin roosevelt museum in hide park, new york, and we're recording this session on november 17th, which is constitution day. what better way to celebrate constitution day than to talk about the supreme court with two outstanding experts on the subject. no president has a more ore significant impact on the supreme court than the, the dr -- fdr. impact on he appointed eight justices during his [inaudible] administration, some who help change american democracy for the better but. we -- will get around to talking about. later the supreme court has changed over the years and certainly -- make no mistakes. the court is always been political. professor of law at st. john's university with robert h. jackson --

biographer of jackson -- discover and editor of -- from his book that man, and's portrait of franklin d. roosevelt. inside her memoir. also with us today ralph blumenthal in new york. new york times reporter and periodic contributor to the times. five books including the believer he has a direct current action at professor barrett gives it better your background. >> thank you paul for this opportunity and the privilege to be at the roosevelt library hosting in every sense except

for actual the path the limit if all of this is really being a lawyer in washington at the department of justice in different federal investigations for the seven years back then and he came a law professor public figures legal ethics and constitutional law heard it converging on the supreme court and people of the court. robert jackson in particular moment -- well we've come from a senate -- me game a big project. for our topic, matters the jackson was an assistant attorney general in 1937, a principle witness -- and the solicitor general who argued in defense of laws

constitutionality before the supreme court. so it's the jackson pass that brought me into this roosevelt world and court packing as a topic. jackson was also part of the nuremburg trials we can talk about that separately so professor blumenthal give us a little bit about your background. you and one of the key members of fdr's administration. >> thank you very much paul i supervise archives collection in the newman library we have a collection of papers of -- who is a member of the brown law committee that reorganized the executive branch for fdr. that came up right in the middle of the court packing fight which is interesting i.

i also was on the new york times for 45 years and one of my happiest stories was being at the roosevelt library. in 2001 when it was renovated also i have written at the times a lot about the holocaust and about robert toxins prosecution at nuremburg is very strolling episode in the episode of the nazi criminals and i should say that i came into this subject through a book called the hundred 68 days which is a virtual diary of the court packing controversy coal written by -- who is managing editor of the new york times when i started there a 1964. joseph i'll stop and it's a wonderful account not completely unbiased of the day

today struggles back and forth over the court packing controversy. it's a privilege to be here. >> glad to have you here -- this cottage is a home that fdr built in hyde park here in the late 1930s. he planned to move in and let him after he left the presidency. it's one of the first houses in america there was designed to accommodate a person with wheelchairs. the doors of certain kind of levers. as an architectural marvel. it's part of the national park services. and the roosevelt home, eleanor's home, the cottage. quick plug, if anybody is coming up, make sure you stop here and visit. back to the subject. let's talk about fdr's court packing controversy.

john, we will start. set the scene. why was fdr so frustrated with the court? what did he try to do to change it? >> i think you have to go back a little bit before his presidency and remember the stock market crash in 1929 coincidentally in that term president hoover herbert hoover had three supreme court nomination opportunities. he made great appointments no denying that. it's a lack of the draw whether president gets vacancies. president trump got three president hoover got three president roosevelt elected in 32, during that first four term got a zero as he mentioned paul. he had a supermajority in both the house and the senate and there was an attack of

legislation on the problems of the depression. he was replaced by the new deal. the new deal ran into a supreme court roadblock in the course of that for your term, roosevelt had no chance to appoint justices, that the nine were there struck down major reform relief laws. quick laundry list. the railroad retirement act, section three of the financial recovery act, the fraser lanky act, the tax component of the agriculture -- another can's conservation act, the amendments to the bankruptcy law. and a state new york minimum wage law was -- roosevelt was popular, powerful and democratically responsive president, and the supreme

court was a tremendous obstacle. we elected overwhelmingly in 1936, he decided to use his political cap capital on his supreme court problems. >> 1932, what was a strategy? what was he trying to accomplish? >> he took it very personally actually, he had a big dream that the supreme court would cooperate with him getting his programs to his new deal programs. maybe john can help our viewers listen understand whether roosevelt was being disingenuous or he thought it disassociation a powers was good. he came up the idea to appoint six new justices and he would cooperate with them, and they would cooperate with him and getting his programs through is insane to our way of thinking to take. if it's a mystery to me how much he believed he could really merge these two branches of government.

what happened was he was really smarting and these rejections overturning of the nra in retrospect but he was resolved he kind of lost it the main or several come proposals one was a constitutional amendment which was difficult. one of the statutory change the jurisdiction of the court. there are various ways of tinkering. the last one was to add provision that whenever justice reached 70, he or she would

have to step down or roosevelt could appoint someone to take his place. that was his plan and he somehow got convinced that this was doable. as john said, he had this wonderful super majority, he coasted in with the 27,000 votes, a huge majority in 1936. he had every reason to think that the country was just waiting, labor was on a side etc and that this would be welcome and of course it was not. >> a little context here. 1936 presidential election was a large electoral landslide in american history. i always think i fdr had an extraordinarily political instinct had gotten him to worry what. a fact that he was elected and

reelected in a wheelchair is incredible. this is one of the darkest times in american history. like to point out he made three of the biggest mistakes of his political career during that period. you're fabric in a pack court, primary conservative southern democrat when he cut the budget leading to the roosevelt recession of 1937. i think he was so installed with his own success in popularity but he tried to do things they were way off path with the american public water. john, talk a little bit about what the reaction was when -- his own party had trouble supporting him in this court package? >> [inaudible] the reveal of

the court was, excellent on a five, oscillated round in the 19th century, but since the 1870s we have had a nine member court. saw sub out 60 years of the country being is tonight as of it at marble. i think that's a visceral source of the reaction. somehow in one fell swoop grow the court to 15 and fill it with like-minded new dealers was somehow un-american in a constitutional. it opened up some of the fault lines in the democratic party. there were old parents who are the committee chairman, there were southern segregationists who were part of this coalition is that roosevelt was trying to hold together. the court as a target was not such a publicly notoriously evil institution, especially the way roosevelt put it out.

he said that the justices were so far behind on their work. there was a pileup of unaddressed surgery positions, which is of course jargon and wasn't true. he also claimed that these ancient justices no longer had their fastball. that was a hard thing to claim about louis brandeis. that sort of spin hit a wall have hostility, and it immediately became controversial. let's try to recalibrate, and robert jackson told him that you need to start telling the truth about this. it's not about age, not a backlog, it's about interpretation that particular the foremost conservative justices have poured into the constitution. [inaudible] they have red states powers to protect social welfare, use the police powers

much to restrictively. this is about the court putting itself and its political preferences in the proper place of the constitution and so democracy can and should respond by appointing more straight shooters, even by appointing more conservative -- and these four horsemen radicals. >> i could just jump in here. [inaudible] it might have seemed that it would be. vice president carter came out of the meeting holding his nose and going like this. i think he had a shot at getting this through because of all the reasons we mentioned. election landslide etc but to a series greek mix missteps he

just succeeded in sabotaging himself. even though it was not a popular thing, it could have been done. >> it's not just self sabotage. external events that happened in those first 33 days. announcement of the plan in february. in early march senate hearings are starting. supreme court justices send a letter to the chairman of the committee saying -- so they blow up the cover story. and the supreme court starts to hand down decisions about upholding new deal laws. so all of a sudden this supreme court problem is receding. state minimum wage is upheld, national labor relations act is upheld. robert jackson and in may it's constitutionality is upheld.

that kind of confluence of events really made it much less necessary to do something dramatic. >> of course that change in their decisions led to one of the great catchphrases of supreme court history which is switching time saves nine. you want to comment on? that >> roosevelt as a maid note in my notes here wouldn't take yes for an answer. the court went out of its way -- i don't know if they designed their decisions to placate him -- that's a good question. was this done by design, or did they see the light and realized they had to uphold these good medial programs? a court started to give him what he wanted, they dug his grave for him and he jumped in. but he didn't have to. it really is amazing how he missed all these signals and

just plowed ahead. he was determined. . i don't know how much john knows but, what is thinking was that's why he wouldn't take yes for an answer. >> he was much too careful to leave a paper trail with everything. from the audience, she asks how do we know court packing was unpopular outside of the conservative circle. average americans in 30s depressionary have a strong

opinion on the court? >> the farmers and the labor and the liberals all turned against it pretty quickly. so he lost his natural constituency. it was not popular from the beginning. roosevelt thought it might being which is why he embarked on it but he started losing his natural allies from the beginning of my right on that? >> some of that is archived. you can measure page by page the public reaction and much of it was very critical. ultimately the senate committee report on the president does pull back and there's another version that would've expanded

the courts buy two seats i think he well would've won if that would've been pushed through to a vote who was a senator from arkansas who would get it over the finish line. one of the two seats for an appointment. roosevelt was making nice with every member of congress early that summer. and robinson drop dead after the fourth of july one more justice announced he was -- so at that point none of it is worth any more trouble. we can live with nine and you see the dominoes. hugo block is appointed august, and he released an ex tier, douglas the next year, frank murphy the next year, robert jackson and james burn, the next year. roseville appointees are just one after another in the wings

starting in the summer of 37. >> there were so many opportunities for him to compromise. cummings who was a true believer, but others came to him repeatedly with mom tan with offers to compromise, and he just wouldn't have. he was dead set on -- he would not even recognize the reality of what was happening. his own allies were coming into him with stories of what was going on at their, and how he was losing support and constituencies. but he was very people had it and it is extraordinary with his sense of timing that we credit him with and is exquisite sensitivity to political whims, he was just dead set on this. >> i think there is maybe an explanation that. home are cummings, the attorney

general was the draughtsman in the proponent of this. part of the problem on the supreme court was justice james mac reynolds. he was one of the force four horsemen. he was a wilson appointee. as attorney general look reynolds had drafted in effect the court packing plan. when cummings solvent and told to roosevelt, it just thought it was such an incredibly wonderful comic thing to take on mick reynolds with a mcdonald's proposal if you owe that they got to attached to the idea that kind of held their enthusiasm in march before recalibration starts. >> we have another question here. what determines how many justices can be --

it's changed in time it's been five eight and seven. it could create a supreme court seat or f one became vacated, could abolish one. i don't think a law could abolish a state justice, constitution protects against that. also in older history and in recent history we've seen the senate as a powerless eternal nomination. under president andrew johnson and it happened under president obama first crash in 2016. also, congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the court court meets the supermajority. they could tinker with the mandate of the court and so many different ways which is

interesting because we think it's protected in the constitution but it's not a congress could change the number of justices reorganize the responsibility. i want to go back to something that john was talking about which is this string starting in the second administration, second term, the disappointment of -- i can ask you both difficult question. who is your favorite child? what's the most significant appointment he made in both changing the course and changing america? ian changing the court and changing america? >> well i have a bias but i think it's well founded in favor of robert jackson well i think was an incredible talent, probably the best writer in the courts history. a case by case jurist. it turned out to be quite a

fractious court as roseville began in the late 30s and went on to the 1950. jackson was kind of more on the conservative side but in the middle if you will and much more in tune with a time person. japanese exclusion case. i think it's talent, jackson was the one. i think maybe hugo clark black because he broke the ice. started the flow and of course black served until 1971, long into student distinguished career, perhaps to overcome the stigma of being having been a ku klux klan member, and then he was nominated to the court, he charted and a gala terry and pat. by the late 1940s, really was becoming the leading civil libertarian liberal liberties

justice. i think he's very important. i have two children, i don't pick favored children, i look at these justices and look at it's an all-star team. it's quite a talented roster with almost no exceptions. >> i would say black also. it's interesting that roosevelt claim -- he was blindsided he, didn't really do his homework on black in regards to the klan membership. but it was also interesting that there was this deal two point joke robinson to the bench after they retired all through the court packing literally work insulin and died before he could be both pointed to the court. roosevelt turned on him and he

was afraid as a southern he wouldn't carry through this liberal agenda. he left robinson hanging, and a very sad episode in history. robinson, i found it his best friend was bernard baroque. i did know that. >> there's a college named after miss near? >> well that's where i work. brook college. he was a famous financial adviser to fdr. it's strange just the way things turned the whole thing could be settled long before it went down in defeat if the plan of being carried through. roosevelt was going to appoint robinson to compromise, maybe appoint two justices not go for the full six, as i keep coming back to this, he was adamant

that he was going either his way or the highway. >> i have two more quick comments about the appointees. he was of course brilliant, and sort of in his career i think most closely to the t's traditional restraint model and with the court packing is about. should be by large made by our elected representatives, and the supreme court to get out of the way of a national government and state government and had ample power in our system. it's also charming and fascinating character. the other person i think we all forget that roosevelt elevated stone to be chief justice. stone was already an associate justice he was a republican he was a coolidge appointee to the court in the 1920s and

roosevelt did that in the summer of 1941. he got bipartisan non political move, and that's -- that was a great thing for the president. >> he was a member of the liberal minority was me? >> he was not one of the four horsemen to be fair. >> interesting he opposed the court packing plan right? >> roseville became very frustrated with him. so to go back in time for a minute, that we're gonna come up to the present day. i want to go back and talk about why the supreme court has this power to determine what is a constitutional law and what is not. go back to the founding days the early 18 hundreds were there was an extraordinary legal case of -- versus -- will start with you.

let's talk a little bit about this. why they lay this foundation to set supreme court gets the final say? >> was that to me? >> yes. >> well it established the right of the supreme court to rule on all legal matters in the government. later on, it was deemed worthwhile in terms of balance of powers. would've been really weak sister without it to the other two branches. it's an interesting example of how the founding fathers had thought of that, but once the court came up with it, everybody said this is a good idea. the court should have this power. it became ingrained in our system, and today we can think of what it would be like without it. so it really is a great example of how the constitution is a greek breathing document.

it's an element and never had in the beginning, everybody said that's a good idea. >> there is in marbury a logic gets into these assertion of power of judicial review. at decides cases that -- constitution. deciding the case means which of those carry the day, so the answer is not the constitution defeats the statute. the court strikes down an unconstitutional statute in a case. that power of judicial review though is different from that answer becoming the authoritative last word. swung this review becoming judicial supremacy. i think that process is something that we all wrestle with, because the court packing plan was pushing back on judicial supremacy being

asserted over new deal laws in the 1930s. i was asked to read a whole book about this call the judicial of the >> -- which is about historically the supreme court has an institution -- and murray was the start and we may be let that go to big. i think they pushed back or backing was one example. proposals for -- today would obviously be in that vein. so let's we have some good questions coming in your. now >> if you have a question put it in the chat. joanne morris, wants to know what's argument was given for increasing the court from six to nine in the first place? one when and who to this? they face similar opposition?

>> it wasn't done in one fell swoop but generally it relates to the creation of the lower courts. number as the number of circuit courts groove, corresponding numbers of justices because of the circuit riding responsibilities lead to early growth. those circuit panels were a justice visiting and riding and joining in the circuit court activity. then as there is more of more cases coming, i'm sure the supreme court was communicating to the congress, we could use another guy appear. i select grew the size of the court. that's largely would us tonight. >> so was less political and more work logged? >> i think structural for the judiciary and the workload. >> i pour in the post civil war

gone filling vacancies when the legal tender case was pending before the supreme court and basically to congress let the court shrink rather than let andrew johnson grow the court in the wrong direction that would've threatened reconstruction. >> one of the early proposals for reforming the court along with the backing was to designate different districts for each of the justices right? i've come from nine different parts of the country and that actually-limited roseville at one point. robinson from one of the places, arkansas so, we had to be rulebook as he came in the same places another justice. >> we have a question from princess michelle your highness. we have any information about how presidents celebrate the

american holiday thanksgiving? i can answer a little bit of this. for many years, fdr would celebrate thanksgiving in warm springs, georgia at the rehabilitation center for poll. turn it into the world's premier polar research center. he would go down there every thanksgiving and spend time there. he went there for a while before this president but even his president he would go down there. he could let people know that he was crippled slash handicapped, and he was swim in the pool, and a called doc roosevelt. it was a tradition that meant a great deal to him. >> good question. >> that image from photographs the first thing that came to mind when i saw the question.

the other thing that i know but not in detail is that the date of thanksgiving, particular thursday was standardized under roosevelt, so it made it more of a national holiday. >> who is standardize because he created a controversy. the retail industry hostin to move it up earlier so they had a longer period between thanksgiving and christmas for people to buy things. so we moved it, they had to solidify that day forever. >> you mentioned polio. [inaudible] we lost you. are you back? >> yeah. >> this is the 100th anniversary of fdr's polio polio.

that made him the great leader he was. the great gave him empathy, given the strength, the power to overcome adversity, skills that he abandoned, or that abandoned him during the court packing thing. also his wisdom, he was limited with strength -- it is interesting that important -- without that important state or history would be different. he may have never developed into that later that he was without the polio. >> have a great question coming in from christopher saying that was james hepburn's appointment, roseville willing to pay back for not going as vice president? certainly an interesting character. expected to run against

roosevelt any comments on the? >> i'm not sure how explicit that was so after 41 not sure what senator burns would've done roosevelt had a high regard for his talent. not in the white house. basically manage the economy during the war. temperamentally burns was an executive branch manager or legislator way head of being a judge. >> do you agree with that? ralph >> the people who ended up being with the president on this court thing and was a select group the gal around --

who really stood with him and the timing of the people were abandoning him. governor of course. it is interesting that he had this small circle of people jackson was one of the people who really stood by the president. >> that's right, jackson in that man the memoirs that were never published -- in about four pages tells his experience of court packing. he went to the white house to have a meeting with the president in february when it was announced and it's off to a bumpy start, and jackson is telling the president, before you go fishing and head out of washington, you really need to have a another crack at

explaining this. roseville according to jackson said that really is a pretty terrible explanation isn't it? he said tell the truth and was much more of a political process that had a chance after that. >> question coming in about the connection between justices -- to the 1930s justices have similar controversies or is this more of a modern development because of over political connections? >> i would say that -- the book 68 days really opened my eyes -- i had a halcyon vision of the

new deal as a program that everyone subscribe to -- and you look back and you think our time is full of internal strife and political infighting, but back then it's, amazing. i don't know how much to court itself because we don't know and the book itself says behind closed doors we don't know but certainly all around the court yet misfire in washington in those days was murderous. in that sense nothing is changed. >> if i'm understanding the question, she's asking about supreme court appointments and whether fights in that context? generally, no. roseville had a big majority in the senate and he can get his

appointees confirmed. that's a fundamental difference between his time and our time. the one who had not hard sailing if you will, but ugly, ugly whispering campaign around it from the bad side was the nomination of frankfurter in july, 1939. frankly that whole nomination was roosevelt not giving a darn about antisemitism and perhaps flicking his chin a bit adolf hitler by putting america's leader's leader lawyer lawyer and prominent you on the supreme court. the senate >> the senatorial courtesy in those days was very strong, so when, if and when roosevelt nominated a center like you go black, that immediately sailed through because it senatorial courtesy. >> it seems highly unlikely but

there is a sense that many people, like history buff like we are contentious nature of the supreme court's new, this is a new phenomenon. he used to be a would sit in their black robes and think that everything is fine. have you heard of brown versus board of education? i think it's an interesting thing to look at here because of the connection and has back to roosevelts court. there was perhaps no decision in american history that has more, maybe roe v. wade, maybe significance consequences on the way americans left. talk about this and white came out and why it was such a such a revolutionary decision.

>> that is such a huge question. the turning point is obviously the creation of this country is a slave country with our constitution ducking that fundamental moral question as the price of ratifying a unity of slave states and free states and raced through the 19th century, civil war and amendments after the war are our fundamental historical reality, our deepest sin, and we won world war ii with the segregated army, fighting against racial supremacy theory opponents. that all came home and had to give the dissidents of nazism and imperial japan and coming home being a racially segregated country. it's won a court filled with roosevelt appointees don't

with. they are the heart of that court, they begin to deal with it in the late 1940s. there are the leading edge, for them it's not a hard question morally or personally. in various ways, it's a challenging legal question, because the guys who wrote the 14th amendment for segregationists. frankly, jimmy burns but his time as governor of south carolina. segregationist and a lot of the country's uprooting. the supreme court with earl warren's leadership in. i think it is constitutional history. >> you couldn't draw a clear division between the congress and the court. the congress was controlled by southerners.

and all segregation's they dealt with the administration, the supreme court is taking a radical approach to quality and the new shape of american society. so, if it had been a congress we would never have the segregated the schools. >> yeah, i find it an interesting book end to the case and the other japanese incarceration case it came out during the administration. if this idea of the citizenship essentially throwing it out the window. i have to wonder what those conversations were like. there is a dissenting voice, and this case really scratch the court in a way that forced

to make a decision. in the midst of this war in the middle of the fear group in the country. how did that decision come down? and why did they not acknowledge the constitutional way of american citizens that have been that japanese heritage? >> the court decides a series of japanese american cases and a kind of slow walk. . this doesn't get decided until 43. the exclusion doesn't get decided until late 44. the worn in the pacific was approaching japan, the island hopping carnage that we were winning. and so, the imperative the majority fictionalizes and at the time. and the president in the army

decided that we have a security concern. the court majority refers to that. national security is of course a real thing, a vital thing. it is also something that can be used, it's special, the supreme court was beaten down. you see how inflamed and the detects more recently, it is no driving the police. it is monitoring the muslim community, it would be a patriot act. you don't have to look that far to understand that mentality that country after pearl harbor. just look after 9/11. >> it's interesting that the supreme court plays a role

there. the travel bans were constitutional. it found itself in the middle of this political fire, as it has with so many cases. when president biden was elected, after supreme court justices by trump, one of the movements that they should back to court. and we sort of walked it through what you have done. walk us through what that would mean, how could it even happen with today's political environment? >> that is the key qualifier, it's not the political priority to do that. the means of exactly what roosevelt said.

this ordinary processors in a belated. president obama not getting the vaccine, then after this president trump is beginning to fill that see. those two being consequential, start accepting the national should have been the other way. president biden there wanted to spend no political capital at anytime soon. he has created this which is filled with over 30 very brilliant, largely legal academic. they have been talking, studying and writing. raising to retirement schemes, and politicize the court. justice serves for good behavior --

that doesn't necessarily mean a right to sit on supreme court cases until one expires. still, after a period of time structure that justices locate into services senior branch waiting for a reserve refusal or something. these people would continue to be justices. but in the meantime, it will be a vacancy that was created. and let's say, every president before your term got -- that became a much more regular thing. that may take a process. it might be challenged, it's ironic to think about how the supreme court would be asked to participate in deciding that. but after we got past that, it would take some number of years before we were in the new regime. and then he would have the supreme court appointment. it is very hard question.

>> it was seized upon that one of the justices, i'm trying to think so he would've been knocked out. i think he was very popular. so, now of course people are living longer. so, that age doesn't seem so old anymore. secondly, look at the difference between biden and fdr. biden is much more careful, not as short politically bide did come off a 27 vote, a landslide 27 million vote. they were very different people, roosevelt was very extreme on this issue. biden has not committed to this issue for militancy.

and yet, the latest refusal of the court to delve into the texas -- and really, i think there's a new element to the debate. people were thinking well, biden is not going to and the issues to volatile. so, i think that is an element. it's interesting. the more decisions like that by the court, and it may move this 32 member panel that biden appointed they come up with something. >> okay, we have a couple questions to come in that aren't strictly related to the. court alternates or couple of them. who was president friends with the united kingdom. it is very famous with invited the king of queen of england. they come to american 1929.

americans but then didn't particularly like the british monarch. a very low popularity ratings. they had to advocate because he married an american. so, there was a real sense that the english monarchy didn't have much to do. they did solidify relations with great britain because what was coming, he knew the war was coming. they'd be a critical ally. so that the big fancy dinner and washington. they came up to high park. here at the top cottage which he served paradox to the king and queen. -- he got it from spreading now. >> absolutely, that was a famous episode. roosevelt saw the need to cultivate these relations with

england which is a battle. at that point, could very well lost the war. and he had this wonderful relationship with churchill, where he addressed him as a navy title. >> he would be a former naval person. >> right. at the start of the course, he referred to him as -- he's not supposed to be talking new england. but when you have it with fdr, -- i spent the pandemic reading all six volumes of churchill's -- it was only getting that came out of the pandemic. >> if a couple of quick questions we are running out of time here. question from andrew smith, appreciate the importance but

i'm wondering if you plan to have another conversation with fdr subjects in the future. first, of all we've been doing this for a year and a half and every week or two we do a new program. it's everything from the afghan relationship with her johnson to the great depression. this public program, then we have 75 of these conversations with authors, historians and we are going to continue to do this. at which point we will continue to live stream this, put it on youtube's that we have -- >> this is going to be the last question, it's a really good one. so, jolin-barrette.

is a lifetime appointment. lifetime appointment, ralph i want to start with you. could you give the last word? >> well, that was the idea. it's a good mechanism for insulating it a similar ten-year term that insulated it. so, it has worked well historically. and it's very difficult to take that away. i'm deferring to johns expertise here. >> it is valuable insulation but the question is how much do you need? and lifetime today, it can be a very long thing. so there is a way to permit

adjustments to serve out beyond his or her appointment moment, that is desirable but don't need to be 30, 40 or 50 years. go to heart disease he served only 14 years in the court. >> and one of, those he was a prosecutor. so, no one can make his or her mark. they can do great services with the supreme court justice without needing many decades. and also, if we're not trying to play for forever or might not prioritized all the younger people. perhaps, we would get more of a career wisdom and experience of more senior people. including people with high offices, they're not liable supreme court candidates. i think that's a terrible loss. >> ralph and john, thank you

very much it's a great conversation. i think we all know as the u.s. constitution, they just a survey that said less than 30% of americans think the development. so there is executive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch. there's supposed to be three equal branches they all about their potential. thank you all for coming, thank you all for watching. >> download c-span's new mobile app. stay up to date with the biggest events from live streams at the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings even our live interactive program. we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered, download the app for free today.

>> alcohol makes it harder to lie, and also maybe this is more surprising. it makes it better detecting lies. i'm a focusing conscious and detecting lies, we don't have a very good job of it. but if we just relax and taken the cues, we do a better job. so, i'm arguing alcohol in the same way that when we meet we shake hands to show that we are not holding a weapon narrowed hand. culture use intoxicants that treaty meetings, business meetings. anything where hostile people need to figure out a way to incorporate. it's kind of a cognitive

disarming. >> senate aide eastern, on q&a. you can look at this on a new c-span now app. >> i would clichés the presidency highlight the politics, policy and legacy of u.s. presidents and first ladies. coming up, a conversational present george washington's farewell address. it was delivered 205 years ago. featured speakers are historian lindsay and joseph ellis. as well as john. >> good evening everyone, on behalf of george washington, organization with 1850s. we continue to protect and serve it today. i want to welcome you to the conversation of george washington's farewell address. on september 19th, 1796 george washington announced to the role that he would not