Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On From Marshall To Moussaoui 20150222

Amount of cases and things to talk about, we needed to find someone with a passion for not only the history of the court but understand the dynamics of the history of virginia that were occurring when these cases were being tried. I was fortunate in that i reached up to one of my law school professors. And the 1st thing he said. We were very fortunate. He agreed to come on board. It was a journey he did an amazing job. I had know experience with publishers, editors, or archivists but but i do through this project. And at times controversial history of the United States District Court for the district of virginia. Our court was one of the first courts in america and is one that has a history but a tremendous amount of debt. Others tried to capture that history and found it to be an overwhelming project. So after a couple of years of frustration, we turned to john pierce. Hes not only a lawyer but also a story in and published author and the proof is in his work the history of the court. Im sure you will find it exciting. Its rich in history and it has a lot of intrigue to it and it is a good read. Tell us first knowing other people couldnt handle this project why did you decide to take this on tax [laughter] it was no punishment at all. Its fair to say that i jumped at the opportunity to work on this project and i did for the reason it for the reason any writer would want to do this book because very simply put, its a great story and thats what any writer looks for is a great story. If you are working with something of that nature is both an honor and not only a challenge that an honor to deal with this. So it was a enjoyable experience. For those that enjoy researching history, tell us about how you got a handle on this huge volume of material in such a short period of time. Most of the books that ive been involved in had a lot of material in a long histories of institutions that have lasted for a long time. I will mention the richmond bar. All of those required you to work with massive amounts of material covering a long period of time and often times a dangerous subject matter. So you develop certain habits and approaches to handle the material that pay off in the long run. In this case first i will tell you i always work from a detailed chronological outline. While im doing my research, i pin everything on to a chronological outline. One sentence with a brief source to the reference of that information and what i ended up with in this case was 31 pages of outline. You then use your outline how you can morph your chronology to an outline and thats where you determine where the chapter breaks are going to become how you are going to break down the material and organize it in such a way that makes sense. So the first decision i have to make and it was critical, i was charged with writing about the notable cases over a 220 or period which gives rise to the question how do you define a notable case in where are you going to find them . I made an arbitrary decision very early on that a notable case would be a case that had been written up in the New York Times or washington post. I did a search under every judges name and what i got was literally hundreds if not thousands of newspaper articles. I had a wonderful librarian who took the names of the parties and the dates to the newspaper coverage and matched those up with a reportedly all opinions. So i had both of the newspaper coverage and the actual formal opinions not only of the trial level but the appellate level and i eventually obtained copies of those opinions and we played everyone into the chronological outline. I think i read probably 600 opinions into probably 300 cases that find their way into a book. It was experienced frankly it was having done this before and knowing how to approach it. Of the glory is that i ended up with the newspaper coverage and the formal legal opinions. Equally valuable because its only through the newspaper coverage that you find out the nicknames for the witnesses and the judges comments from the bench, the local color, thats the sort of thing. In addition to having a historical perspective, you practiced as a lawyer in the court for many years. Did that give you the unique insight to determine what cases are important and which ones are not . I had written about the courts in bits and pieces going back perhaps as long as 40 years. I didnt really have a complete picture except for the really critical cases in the segregation cases, the cases in recent years involving the uranium contracts and the james river. I was aware of those cases but frankly it was my experience as a lawyer that probably helped me more in reading and understanding the cases themselves. When i was in law school i couldnt understand why my professors were asking me the facts combined with the holdings i never really understood why i was practicing law. After i began working on this book i learned. It took me over 50 years that i learned for the first time i was important. So that was one of the critical skills. Hispanic i know one of your observations has been that in the history in the district of virginia you thought it was a very effective vehicle for talking about the history of jurisprudence in america. It is. I think that writing about the Eastern District of virginia or the history of any court is probably the most viable ways to teach virginia our history and the reason for that is ultimately the most important issues in our culture are in our society and they find their way to court. Just think about it for a while. Abortion, gun rights, healthcare enemy combatants public corruption. We have a healthy dose of such recently in virginia. But the important thing is coming and this is why some experience with virginia becomes important. The history of an institution but especially of the court is only important if you place it in the context. Youve got to be able to type those cases to events that are taking place and have issues that are alive in the culture and society in which you are writing about. As an example if you are going to be writing about the cases in the Eastern District of virginia is essential that you know about the war in europe and the activities that the activities of the french and spanish and english in the west indies and the emerging latin american republics. You cannot understand the cases in the Eastern District without that context so you have to be able to fill that part of the story. Most people revealing the history of the 18th and 19th centuries tended to focus more on the prominent members of the executive or legislative branch rather than the Judicial Branch. Why has the Judicial Branch and so overshadowed at the other branches in the reporting of the history in virginia . Writing in the history of virginia that number one unless youre talking about the federal courts its rare that the Virginia State court cases really had a great impact on society as a whole. The cases in the federal courts have. But i think during the early days of the republic particularly when they were adopting the constitution promulgating the first judiciary act people naturally look to the Founding Fathers who were essentially legislative people. They were not judges. Now we are getting close to a tie in with virginia because the one jurist in American History probably had the most impact on making the Judicial Branch of government equal with executive and legislative branches was John Marshall. Thats the most convenient place to begin since he was the one that inspired so much of the basic principle of constitutional law in america today. Lets Start Talking about John Marshall. He was on the u. S. Supreme court. He was also a trial judge, was he not . Thats something i realized for the first time in writing this book and its something i dont think that most laymen and lawyers realize even today. John marshall was appointed the fourth chief justice in 1801. And he died in 1835. He was chief justice of the United States for those 34 years. And as i say was probably the individual who in the history of the land probably had the most dramatic impact on the sheet and power of our federal government today. If Thomas Jefferson had have appointed a justice of the United States, we would be looking at a very different government today, three different federal government. But at the same time the thing people dont realize is the entire time John Marshall sat on the Supreme Court as the chief justice, he also looked at a trial judge in the Eastern District, what would have been the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of virginia. It was named the Circuit Court because every Supreme Court justice had a circuit and in those days there was inconvenience and discomfort and all that sort of thing. When he was chief Justice Marshall spent two months a year in washington. He spent ten months a year either in virginia or North Carolina writing as a trial judge. That meant that he impaneled juries, sentenced criminals from a pooled on the admission of evidence all the things the justices do today and in the course of that he wrote a number of opinions and you get a very different view as a trial judge from the view that you receive as americans refer to balance the great chief justice. And he sat on a number of very critical cases while being a judge in the Eastern District. Tell us about the structure of the courts back in those days. In addition to the Supreme Court you had to Circuit Courts and the trial court that the plane that dynamics of the two. There were three levels of courts under the first to do she react. There were District Courts that have limited jurisdiction. Petty crimes but one important aspect was admiralty cases. In the then the circuit cases were the primary federal courts. There was nothing between the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court. There were no federal Appeals Court in that day. We all know know now that Circuit Court of appeals and eighth Circuit Court of appeals. There were no Circuit Court of appeals in the federal system cases went to directly from the Circuit Courts to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of justice was assigned to every Circuit Court and sat on the Circuit Court with the district judge for that circuit. And so here you have the chief justice of the United States spending most of his time as a trial judge. Life today for a justice is pretty cushiony to say the least. [laughter] also the accommodation and lifestyle of a Supreme Court justice back at the age of John Marshall. First you have to understand first during the decade it was a very weak institution. I think there were some years during the decade when the Supreme Court only rendered one opinion per year which today seems unimaginable. It wasnt totally clear at that point whether the Supreme Court had the power of the judicial review not only statutes but also federal statutes and state statutes. So it was recognized as a weak institution. The justices when they met in washington all of the justices in the first decade wrote separate opinions. So you didnt have a unified opinion of the court that you could look to. Marshall when he became chief justice not only under his leadership the court adopted a number that affected our lives to this very day in a very dramatic fashion but during martial, the two months they were in marshall they stayed together in the same room and engaged in any outside social activities. It was all introspective and they began to write collective opinions for the first time. In other words he would have an opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Not a halfdozen separate opinions by the individual judges. I assumed back in those days it was a very highly compensated position. In fact while up you may have some to contribute here. [laughter] of the federal judges and Supreme Court received very meager compensation for years and years. In fact it was often times a tossup whether a politician but offer to become a federal judge or elect to run for congress again. So it wasnt particularly lucrative. A lot of the cases the Supreme Court would hear this session as well as prior sessions turned on the principles that really originated with ten of John Marshall when it comes to the separation of powers and the various Constitutional Authority that each of the branches of government have. Talk about that for a minute. I certainly dont hold myself out as a Supreme Court scholar. But i think i did list about six cases in the book that have led to marshall being characterized as the great chief justice. First is the case which they held that they have the right to review the statutes adopted by congress. Youve got to get give in this case that solidified the congress right to regulate interstate commerce. Youve got mcauliffe versus maryland, which in essence said that congress had the implied power to implement the expressed power of the constitution and give it a collins versus virginia which upheld the right of the Supreme Court to review state criminal cases which the constitutional issue was alleged to arise. We have one more with madison that kind of beside the separation of power between the branches of government. One of the more intriguing parts of the book deals with the relationship between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson they had somewhat of a strained relationship to be mild about it. Talk about the genesis of that and what kind of a relationship today have both familiar and professional. One of marshalls biographers described the relationship and i havent forgotten the term and i hope i can quote it correctly he described it as an unrelenting mutual hatred. [laughter] there may be a little understatement of their. They hate each other. They were distant cousins but they hated each other and it was large measure political and it was large measure personal. They just simply did not like each other. The Political Part of it is we tend to think of the Founding Fathers as a group that nothing could be further from the truth. Look at our show and medicine at washington. They were federals and preferred a Strong National government. Jefferson and henry and mason they were antifederalist. They were statewide, weak federal government people. And the political battles for the first two decades of this country were fought not only in the Constitutional Convention but in the courts and in the congress and let me alert you to the fact the battle between the federalists and antifederalists still ranges today. We see it in the federal courts in this country every day. So it is the one constant is the difference between the two philosophies of strong federal government, Central Government limited federal government more power to the state and it goes that way in the 1790s and in a large degree that way today. We will turn to the trial of aaron burr. You mentioned in your book that the tension between jefferson and marshall came to the forefront during the trial in some of the runup to it. Tell us a little about that. Two things that i would like to mention first about the trial of aaron burr for treason gets important to do this because two large extent the trial of aaron burr writing has been overlooked in history. Particularly where it took place near richmond. First the trial for treason was probably the most important single event ever to take place in the city of richmond. You could mention the surrender of the city to the yankees any team 65 but i think that the trial still ranks right up there at the head of the patch with apologies to o. J. Simpson. [laughter] i think the trial may well be the most important that ever took place in the United States. Here you have a former Vice President of the United States being prosecuted for treason. The prosecution being initiated by Thomas Jefferson president of the united president of the United States and with John Marshall his archenemy sitting on the bench as the trial judge. I wonder how many satellite trucks that would bring. [laughter] bring to capitol square. And it took place in the capitol building. The grand jury was composed entirely of jeffersons political friends including the speaker of the house john randolph. Senators, former governors, the legal talent in the case was probably the greatest rate of legal talent ever gathered in one courtroom in america. What did he do to deserve all this attention . No one knows exactly that what he was accused of number one, jefferson blamed aaron burr not for withdrawing when the election of 1800 was going to the house of representatives. He had done in been in the Vice President ial candidate with jefferson and because of the way that the votes were counted a tired and was thrown into the house of representatives and it took over 32 decided that he was president of the United States. Jefferson never for david. He felt he should have resigned. If you also killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804. Us, when jefferson heard from his commander in new orleans that his city was under threat from a force led by aaron burr, he seized the opportunity to have him prosecuted. Very little is known about what he actually did. The one thing that was known is he and an irish nobleman plotted to have what turned out to be fewer than 100 men go out in the middle of the ohio river that was in part of virginia. They were provided with provisions and arms and left some place in the west. The thinking was to gain this reputation and power after the bill with hamilton he left for the west in an effort to rehabilitate himself. The critical fact is that he was never on the island. The definition of treason is set forth in the constitution very precisely and im not quoting exactly but essentially it is waging war against the United States or adhering to its enemies. So theres an element of waging war. The main issue in the trial as it turned out was whether the United States was going to adopt the british doctrine of constructive treason. Under the british doctrine, anyone who had been engaged in a plot, been engaged in a conspiracy would have been considered a participant in the crying even though they havent taken up arms or done anything of that sort, just the plotting of the treason would have made him guilty. Marshall ultimately ruled in the trial that because of the definition and the constitution of the waging war we cant say that few can be found guilty of treason when you were not even present on the island when it was alleged to have taken place. It was on the motion to exclude large portions of the evidence in the trial but was included but they didnt have enough evidence to convict him. Let me assure you that it did little to enhance the relationship between marshall and jefferson. It had been bad and then it got even worse. In a few years jefferson was sued personally in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of virginia and in this case marshall actually ruled in jeffersons favor, so all is not lost. To put this into context, back in those days and the dialogue between federalist and antifederalist the charge of treason was fairly common, was it not . I dont know the answer to that. I dont know whether there were many other charges of treason. Turning to the civil war era explain how that affected the structure of the federal courts in virginia. It affected about as trusted me as it could be affected. Virginia was one of only two states that had both confederate and federal courts sitting within its borders. A federal the federal judge in richmond, James Halliburton when the south seceded he resigned as federal judge and became the confederate judge. He ultimately swore in Jefferson Davis. Norfolk felt to the forces the forces in 1862 and alexander was always in the union had the loyal government was sitting in alexandria. They have the federal had the federal courts sitting within the boards explained that the last civil war was all about it occurred 14 years after the war but its a very appropriate description. His son sued the federal government for possession of the Arlington Estate in Northern Virginia in each and 79 in the federal District Court. Can you imagine the emotions that generated . By then the Arlington Estate was the how the grounds of Arlington National cemetery with many union dead from the civil war. The Arlington Estate had been seized by the federal government for the nonpayment of taxes. The catch is that it was tough to pay because you have to pay them in person. [laughter] there were not many that wanted to show up in arlington to pay their taxes at the time so they went unpaid at and the federal government seized property. In actuality the court ultimately ruled in favor of the family but Congress Found that to be unacceptable and had to result in a congressional settlement where the federal government actually acquired the title after paying the family compensation from the property. John davis in the Eastern District of virginia would be complete without talking about john underwood. We got federal judges who had been heroes and federal judges who had been controversial but no federal judge in the history of virginia has ever been so controversial than john Curtis Underwood. He was appointed by lincoln to be the federal judge in alexandria and throughout the war he was engaged mostly in the cases to confiscate the property of the rebels whose Property Union could reach and after the war, he was the federal judge who spearheaded the efforts to prosecute Jefferson Davis and approximately 30 other confederate leaders including many generals and a number of others for treason. He was the one who sort of pushed through the indictment and as you all know the proceedings against Jefferson Davis lasted for several years and he is confined for a long time. Ultimately they went away. The proceedings against robert e. Lee and the other federate leaders went nowhere because he appealed to general grant on the basis that it was his understanding and grant as well that the terms of surrender inc. A position the position that there would be no retribution. To make a long story short, general grant interceded with president johnson and even threatened to resign his commission if those proceedings were pursued but they were not. There is no record of any further proceedings beyond that point. John Curtis Underwood during the course of reconstruction was what was known as a radical republican. In order to regain full admission to the union and get out from under the military rule, virginia had to adopt a new constitution. I think the convention began in 1868 and it was ultimately ratified in 1870. But the chairman of the convention adopted the new virginia constitution was john Curtis Underwood and to this day, it remains known as the underwood constitution. Among White Virginians to this day he was the most revolved person in the state of virginia in the state that was for well over half a century. In fact virginia politicians for over half a century said about the major lifework was to undo what john Curtis Underwood has done. In referring to the court, he described his court and this telling. He described it as an advanced judicial picket station in a foreign country. So thats the way things look to him at the end of a civil war. To show you how it evolved, i have to read this because i cant remember it all but there is a great quote. Its one of those that when an author finds that he just jumps for joy and assess yearly says eureka. Writing about the former governor of virginia incidentally he summoned all of his journalistic skills when he called underwood and im quoting an absurd blasphemous cowardly to publish fanatical portable ignorant yankee zero. [laughter] you have a great many virginians who viewed john Curtis Underwood in precisely that way. [laughter] that sounds like some of the letters that we get today. [laughter] not every decision made by the u. S. District court in virginia were well received by the public. Lets move to the desegregation era. The talk about the impact that had on some of the major decisions. While it all happened during my lifetime and the lifetimes of a number of you in the audience. It began in while it began before that. Constitution of virginia provided in so many words they used the word negro and said that no white or negro child with the segregated tv code in the same schools. Keep in mind a couple things when we talk about the segregation cases. The desegregation cases changed the face of america and virginias way of life. It was that simple. Thats what was at stake. Before the decision in 1954, separate but equal was the established doctrine of which all virginians relied for determining the legal relationship of the relationships of the races and the schools. Separately it was always a myth in virginia. I mean, schools were not they were separate but by no means were the they equal and theres a long line of the litigation in the Eastern District of virginia to say just that, the schools are not equal. A new generation of more aggressive relatively young africanamerican attorneys including richmond and robinson decided to approach desegregation from a different perspective. They were no longer to accept separate but equal as the appropriate doctrine for determining the look out for the anticipation of the races in the school. And they attacked segregation on a constitutional basis saying the separation of the races itself is unconstitutional. That led the first significant case in virginia that involved but attack was the case from Prince Edward county. It was decided by the panel in 1972. Added some segregation to be perfectly. You had anthropologists and psychiatrists and psychologists and educators all testifying for both sides and ultimately, the court decided that no segregation is legal because and again im going to pair a phrase here because it declares on the way of life in virginia. And number two is part of the mores of the people. So what is involved in the davis case of wax the way of life in virginia and the mores of the people. The case went up to the Supreme Court with the brown case. Its enough of a vehicle accident but it wasnt the fifth versus Prince Edward county instead of brown versus the board of education in topeka kansas they were all decided on monday by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court and the relatively thought unanimously he cant do this. Once separate but equal was gone there was nothing left to believe their integrate the schools what you would resist. Massive resistance was a doctrine that was promulgated essentially by the political machine and brown was decided in 54 and then a year or two later the virginia General Assembly adopted a package of massive resistance legislation one element of which was a peoples placement plan where they would place students in the school but at this state the burden was always on the block. Stupid chief integration. They would have to bring suit or do something. And ive got to say here that it was up to the federal judges to do it. Had there been no federal judges willing to act in virginia at this time, nothing would have happened in response to brown created no state court ever took any action to implement the decision. The judge in in the old in 1959 ruled that they should go to predominantly white schools. They became known as the marvel 17 in the class of 1959 and as the lost classic 1959 because the governor closed down as well as the schools and charlottesville. Within a couple years the federal courts court said it was unconstitutional to close the school. Then they became cases that dealt with the issue of freedom of choice which was the next method to try to achieve integration and as it turned out it was practically ineffectual because few black students chose to go to white students and few white students choose to go to black schools. And that led to the green case from the county. In that case the ultimately the Supreme Court said freedom of choice doesnt work, youve got to integrate your schools. Take affirmative actions to integrate your schools. There is a vast difference between making segregation unlawful and telling people they have to integrate their schools. Ultimately this led to. That is the case in which the judge ruled that it should be merged for 1971 72 school year. It went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit and the justice that didnt vote was lewis powell from richmond with any former chair of the school board. No one knows how Justice Powell would have voted if he voted to reverse the circuit and reinstate the judges rulings we would be living in a very Different Community right now. But it went on for 22 years. We went from freedom of choice to segregated schools unconstitutional, massive resistance freedom of choice, people placement ruled unconstitutional, freedom of choice ultimately the unitary School System to reject the idea of merging. I think thats thats a. Let it. Let me add one personal footnote to this. I have his portrait in the courtroom. Whether or not you agree with his decision, it is cheering to him and his wife to describe to you what they went through as a result of that decision the reverberations were. People burned one of his houses, broke his windows and most touching was the fact that someone killed his precious dog. He paid a very dear price for standing up to the principles that he stood for. The closing moments whats turned to the portion of the history relating to the courts here in the Eastern District. The talk little bit about the maritime jurisdiction and talk also about why it is a paper to venue provided the National Security cases. A lot of the importance is controlled by geographical reasons from the early stages of the republic you have a lot of admiralty cases. Number one you usually have to be on the navigable ocean to get a lot of admiralty cases. So there were a lot and they were imported cases. Pirates and privateers and they come up to the current day. The reason i mention the current day as far as the maritime jurisdiction is that the invention of the small submersibles changed the admiralty for that reason you have all the litigation pertaining to the titanic in the Eastern District of virginia and a lot of the litigation pertaining to the rights to literally millions of dollars spanish gold resting in galleons on the bottom of the sea has taken place in the Eastern District of virginia and only recently and this was too late for my book you had the trial and conviction of the somali pirates in the Eastern District. The reason that we havent gotten into the terrorists and i noticed today that zechariah who is in the title is back in the headlines and you may have seen him, but the reason that you get the terrorist is good because world war ii and the defense and intelligence communities moved to Northern Virginia. It is a quirk of geography really that we ended up chiding the most missouri us in the Eastern District of virginia as well as some of the most missouri us terrorists who was the guy that took flight lessons in minnesota and was in jail when all of the other bad guys got on the plane. So he missed the plane is what it boils down to we do have the reputation of the Eastern District of being the rocket docket and we take pride being one of the fastest in the country. There is one district that claims a process cases faster. Every judge in the Court Questions the statistics. Is that a help or hindrance and do people want to litigate all swear . Absolutely in the cases of certain types into the Eastern District all the people that want to cases at adjudicated promptly including certain consumer litigations and patent litigations into certain categories seek out the Eastern District of virginia to bring the cases here. I always get asked about the rocket docket because it seems to strike a responsive chord when people hear the term they always think thats wonderful. Lawyers didnt think that it was all that wonderful when it was imposed on them but it used to be a joke. There was only one reason for granting the content of its continued on the extension of the trial date for any other and that was a death in the family. [laughter] thats the way the rocket docket is important from the legal history perspective and for years i got with this myself. And i practiced the lawyers paid for the control of the litigation. The judges never entered into it. If the lawyers wanted to bring their case on the trial they would end if they wanted it to some of docket for months or years they could do it and the judge normally wouldnt interfere. That was the English Common law practice. Lawyers controlled the pace of litigation. And what happened when the federal judges instituted the rocket docket was that they were willingly or unwillingly changing several centuries of jurisprudence as to who controlled the pace and to the credit i believe the judges came down on the side of justice. Is that a severe and a great reputation for it and scare a lot of lawyers. But yes you cannot talk about the Eastern District without talking about the rocket docket. Sometimes they come into the court and say your honor, we would like to have a quick trial date. And some of the judges back in the olden days was a fine tomorrow morning, 9 30. But ladies and gentlemen the book jon peters is the author and before we close we have time for a few questions. One or two. Does anybody have a question . Very interesting some great stories. A procedural question to both of you. Tell us just quickly about the advent and the impact of the sentencing guidelines in the system. Do you have in our . Like her co it has changed the dynamics of the sentencing in federal courts and i personally bb that its taken away an awful lot of the discretion of the trying of judges. It does create some uniformity. But there is a complexity to it and for those of you that are not willing to set guidelines about that that tells you how to compute the range of sentencing based upon a number of factors the practice of sentencing guidelines has taken on a topic unto itself because 23 of the cases 23 of the cases heard by the court of appeals deal with sentencing guidelines. Its begun to overshadow and overtake the entire system. I was a strong proponent of the guideline. Taking a second look at the judge im not so sure that they were a good idea. Any other questions . Right here in the front row. As you observed many years in the judicial actions does it appear to you that judges who we once thought were very separate from whatever is going on in society, does it appear to you that they have had any influence about what is going on culturally or in the society or have they been able to separate themselves or look at the law . I think that is a question for a historian. [laughter] very grateful to you for that. [laughter] it is a very complex question i dont know whether im even capable of addressing that. I think that probably there is a tendency for us to think today that things have changed today more than they really have. I think that our judges for the most part are good at separating themselves and i think that one problem is the law and the judicial cases have become such a prominent part of our headlines today that people do not consider the judges, they consider the judges to be almost like youre ordinary politicians that they are accessible and it seems to me a good judges for the most part still remained capable of keeping themselves separate and not getting caught up in a culture or society. But its a wonderful question and one that really deserves some attention. Unfortunately i havent given it. [laughter] i would just add a think almost every federal judge in the nation reads the newspaper, keeps up with cultural events and im sure subconsciously as a factor in the thought process as it is with every other person i dont think it is dominant. I think what is concerning to a lot of people and i talked to folks all around the country is whether or not a lot of core issues today are being resolved in the judiciary they should be left to the democratic process. I ask you all to join me in thanking john. [applause] up next on booktv, sandeep jauhar, director of the Heart Failure program at long island jewish medical center. He weighs in on the current state of health care in the United States. His talk is from last weekends savanna festival in georgia. It runs just over an hour. [applause] thank you so much for that generous introduction. First i just want to say what a pleasure it has been for me to be here this weekend. I brought my family. My children are now actually probably connoisseurs of george g. Because we were at the decatur book festival in august. But i want to say that they have given savanna a big thumbs up as have i. And i also very quickly want to acknowledge the organizers, specifically robin and linda who are so helpful in bringing us here in our wonderful host who is the paragon of southern hospitality. So when robin invited me to come here she first gave me some parameters for this talk and said talks mostly about yourself and what motivated you to get into writing and i thought, you know as a writer of the two memoirs how am i going to do that . How am i going to talk about myself . But i will do the best i can. I was in the lobby before coming here, wonderful hotel three i was chatting with one of the authors and he said what are you going to talk about . Im not sure im going to be spontaneous. So i dont know exactly where this is going to go but hopefully it will be enlightening. I was born in india