My name is leyland. Im the general manager of commerce bookstore. Would you like to have you here today to share an evening without a vitale and kim whaley if you havent been here before welcome to kramers, this is an iconic establishment started in 1976 known forest parkiness progressiveness and inclusive this if youre returning book lover were thrilled to have you here again now that students dances are safe enough to return to inperson events. This is about our fourth event. So far in this new space, so welcome. Oh and perhaps its unnecessary to say, but if you could please silence yourself. Its really never unnecessary to say that but i always say that. All right. Allow me to introduce our guests of honor. Ill leave italy is a capital hill correspondent for mdc news based in washington, dc. She ported on both President Biden and Vice President harris throughout the 2020 campaign trail as well as congresss most recent efforts to pass covid release legislation. As an mdc news road warrior in 2020. She followed and reported on the campaigns of Center Elizabeth warren. Senator, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bloomberg during the democratic primary contest. To previously covered the trumpet ministration as a White House Reporter for nbc news digital and was a Political Campaign embedded reporter on donald trump 2016 president ial campaign. She joined nbc news in 2012 and is graduate of Tulane University her first book. Id like to go why hasnt america put it put a woman in the white house yet. Well be out in august 2022. A professor Kimberly Kimberly is an author lawyer law professor and legal exp. She served as a legal analyst for cbs news appearing on face to nation with margaret brennan. She is a regular guest on msnbc cnn bbc and npr and has appeared on fox news cspan and pbs. Shes a contributor to politico the atlantic the bulwark the hill and has written for the Baltimore Sun and la times. She is a former assistant United States attorney associate independent council in the white water investigation and author of the books how to read the constitution and why what you need to know about voting and why and how to think like a lawyer and why . Kims books are all available at the counter of the bookstore, please please help me welcome ali vitale in cuba, lily. Hi everyone. Im so excited to be here fourth event in the space feeling really good about being back. Person and to be here to celebrate kims amazing achievement of this latest book, youre so prolific. Were just talking about how many she has and i think its so striking you say its just this big moment for ethics and Civic Engagement and i think this latest book really speaks to that. And of course many of us know kim from her columns from her many appearances. Im thankful as someone whos also all the time on msnbc you and i often get to float in boxes together next to each other. So to be here in person is is a real treat. Ive been excited about doing this talk for weeks now, but im really excited that were doing it today of all days because the first thing that i thought of this morning was the news that we ended up covering all day, which was on the leaked memo or decision from the Supreme Court about the dobbs versus mississippi case, and the first thing i thought was so how do i think through this like a lawyer would and so im glad that were here to talk about this tonight, because i wonder for you. How you digested all of the different pieces of that and how we as an audience of people who are engaged and following this news what we should be looking at. Well, let me first thank kramer for having me and thank you ali for doing this and everyone for being here. Its a its a really apt question because in the book i talk about five steps i break down thinking. Oh like a lawyer into five steps the number one step and one that students have said is the biggest takeaway from my classes is to take a big issue in break it down into smaller issues. So we are in a very polarized world thats called people say that all the time but when i say that what i mean is were into black and white thinking im right youre wrong heads. I win tales you lose we go to our camps and we entrench ourselves in those camps and abortion of course has been one of those divisive issues now, several decades and its polls will ask. Are you pro . Are you against and actually its a much more complicated nuanced question, right . So if you took the question am i to i support abortion rights or not many sub issues there right . You have to think about the Health Care Implications for the person who is finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. You have to think about the implications for the ark of constitutional law and other rights in america. You might have to think about the moral and religious implications for yourself Justice Alito and the elite decision open that decision talking about the morality of the issue, which really isnt the job of law. Its the job of the individual and the family and the faith right, but if you take that big issue and break it down into smaller ones immediately you realize there arent any easy answers right if you want to emphas is one aspect of it, maybe, you know people believe many people believe that the life of the unborn child is something the law should respect but if you if that is your priority you have to give something up right youre going to have to give up the the needs or interest of the woman particularly low income women who are disproportionately affected by these kinds of laws. So thats really step one and well talk about the other steps but getting informed on the facts the legal implications that bear on each of these those issues and turning it over saying okay. Whats the other side of the coin here . Like i try to say imagine youre the person that you really respect. What are the best arguments they will make for a position. You dont agree with were not used to thinking that way and thats what the book tries to get to and frankly. Ive been doing a lot of tv and radio today. Yeah and trying to break it down into what is this really about not you know thumbs up or thumbs down issue is really the most critical element of it because i think what youre talking about with the buycat method in this book is so important to how all of us can apply the ideas to okay. How do we even make sense of this really wideranging opinion that came down and is going to have impacts over the course of the next few weeks and months politically and then of course civically and socially but its really your first book that allows you the perfect insight into this moment particularly because its whats in the constitution. What are our rights here . And i wonder what your first thought was when you read that alito draft where he was coming from and what argument he was making. Well the critical part of my series of books in the title is the why yes, if you understand the why you can understand the what right . So why do we have . Constitutional rights when i ask people this question, what is a constitutional right in these groups . Inevitably someone will raise their hand and say well, its just something that i have as an american, but actually functionally its not so much that what is the constitution . Like its the ability to go to court and get an order stopping government from being. Too aggressive into some space that is personal to you. Right so my first question and reading alito and we can talk about the details. He kind of set up a twopart test for these rights Going Forward. That is a little arcane. Its brand new in the law really or its it draws from other elements, but the bigger question really i said to myself i think almost the abortion debates been framed improperly around the rights of the woman. Its really about how much do we want to confine and constrain the power of the government, right . This goes to anything from the rights to bear arms to the right to not be forcibly sterilized by government. Thats not in the constitution and were talking all about. Oh abortion rights isnt arent in the constitution. Well, theres a lot of stuff. Is not in the constitution and the problem with this decision is the potential cascade of implications for rights that we take for granted. But again, if you understand why we have rights, why do we call them rights . Its because we most americans want their freedoms. They really dont like an overbearing government encroaching in private spaces. Thats a really different frame right . So if you think about it that way and not so much always that the woman is that is it the unborn child, but is it about as a as americans . How much power do we want to give government the Supreme Court . It looks like its poised to really aggrandize the power of government and minimize the power. Of individuals and i dont think people across the political spectrum like that idea and i think its actually a fascinating way that you talk about it too because the decision would put the power with the states, right . So the idea theoretically of less Big Government at the federal level, but much bigger influence at the state level, which i think is really fascinating if youre looking at conservative principles too well and talk about okay. Why do we have a federal government, then why because we had a civil war just an example around certain states wanting to continue to enslave human beings for profit, right . We then had a post reconstruction amendments the 13th the 14th the 15th amendment the 14th amendment is where roe versus wade and abortion rights and a lot of rights come from but what happened there . Well, the Southern States said we dont care what the constitution says were going to do what we Want Congress had to pass a statue 42. Yes usc 1983 called the Klu Klux Klan act it basically as we said to the beginning give people a right to go to court to get an order to tell the government to stop doing something. So the fact that states have you know their own legislatures doesnt is it enough if it were enough we wouldnt have a constitution the framers understood that its psychologically human nature to a massive abuse and their power and thats why we have the government broken up into different pieces. Its all about accountability and again, the book if you understand the why and you understand the very implications you can noodle through these problems and get out of im right youre wrong. Im right youre wrong and then that just escalates and people get isolated people feel feel judged people feel shamed and once shame enters a picture the dialogue is over and i want to talk about the tribalism and we can come back to that. But i think the thing that was striking to me is i picked up this book initially and i thought well, my parents are lawyers. Theyre going to be thrilled that im reading it. But when you think of how to think like a lawyer i think that some people might initially wall themselves off to the idea that they even need to because they dont work in politics or they dont work in a law firm. But really, i think what i was so struck by in these pages was the fact that you say no attacking it with this mindset can help you figure out anything from should my kids have a social media account to the bigger life questions, too of like, you know, what happens if getting divorced and i think that when you when you make that turn to the personal it becomes so much more accessible and i wonder why you think its important to make that turn. Well, all of what i do frankly why i started doing this a few years ago was to take the Law School Classroom sophisticated, you know graduate level legal analysis and translate into common sense everyday language for people the big distinction. I would say between how lawyers think and its hard for my students to get this it takes weeks and the rest of us most of the time lawyers look for questions. Yeah students come in. They want the answer. Whats the answer . What do you want professor whaley im like, well, im not going to be sitting in your office when you get the first problem and if youre if you could wikipedia the answer no ones going to pay you 500 bucks an hour, right . Youre here. Youre hired because its ambiguous. Its great. Its squishy. Its confusing. So lawyers are like bloodhounds and look for the questions. And the answer is only come later if at all, i mean most of us arent going to be on the Supreme Court. We started talking about Supreme Court. So lawyers have to deal with bad facts with bad law. They have to tell their client. They cant give them get them what they want they deal in this in between space and what we see on tv is theyre fighting for their client what it doesnt we dont see are the weeks and months and sometimes years of spade work gathering facts making sure theyre verifiable you do. This is journalist. Yeah, not because youll go to jail, but because it makes for Good Journalism and you have professional ethics and thats the same for lawyers. Yeah, and i also think you you make the point that a lot of this is fact finding and i think that right now in this moment, there is so much saturation online on social media and along with that comes disinformation. We have seen the real life implications of that even on Something Like january 6th, right but you give in this book some examples of you know, legacy organizations are the places that you should be going you use the marty mcfly test of if they were around then, you know, you should be looking at them now, but i wonder what you think the impact of having all of these different spaces for information are because on the one hand. Its a nice democratization of media on the other. It makes it really hard to find good facts sometimes. Yeah. I mean i think about when i grew up in buffalo, new york 105 kids and we had the super duper encyclopedia when my mother bought enough groceries. Shed get the next the next volume and thats where we all went right that that was everything and so the goal and if you really wanted to dig in you go to the library youd have to get the card catalog you might have to do some microfiche you have to go to the xerox machine and make the copies and have your coins. I mean finding the information was the challenge right and was the skill now, its the opposite. Its sorting. Yeah the information its sorting it. Its not only overwhelming in terms of content exponentially growing but algorithms based on our swipes and our clicks and our speech. Yes our thinking for us and feeding information into our phones that confirms perceived biases that we have. Its a different completely different world where we need to learn and we need to teach our children how to sort for good facts and what does that even mean . And thats i think i think technology and ive said this for many years but technology is vastly outpaced the law and its also vastly outpaced how we problem solve we talk about Critical Thinking skills. The five part by kat method is is really that its okay break it down into pieces identify your values and im sure well talk about that surprises people that lawyers have to think about value systems collect lots of knowledge and i do talk about how to do it analyze both sides because if you dont think of your opposing argue, councils argument youre going to youre going to lose you have to know your opponents argument as well as your own and then t, which i think is critical tolerate the fact that youre not going to get everything. Its not black and white. Its mostly gray and you have to tolerate the fact that you cant have it all and you got to give stuff up and were just not used to that in our culture. Its you know a team team mentality. You know, my team youre very tribal and its hurting our kids. Its, you know, depression rates anxiety suicide. People are feeling alienated. They dont know to communicate. They dont know how to bridge gaps and and connect which is our human instinct. So i think people do look at the title and say oh lawyers. All they want to do is fight. Oh, yeah, actually actually its the opposite. Its kind of chicken soup for the soul chicken soup for the soul with like your one l class wrapped into it. I mean i even grew up when you talk about having to learn both sides of it my parents used to tell me you shouldnt ask questions that you dont want to know the answers to or unless you know what the answer is going to be and that comes from knowing where the other side is coming from. I think the thing thats striking for me because i exist on the hill in a place that is regularly our versus d red versus blue you can predict the tribal lines on every issue as they form and part of it feels like were not operating from the same set of facts anymore on a lot of these issues and im wondering how you wrap up this moment of perceived bias and the way that you cant really tolerate the other persons argument if it feels like youre not operating from the same foundation because the tribalism is just seeping in how do you unwind all of that . Well, i think a lot about this right so started with the book on the constitution. Yes, then i realized our democracy is all about voting which is not in the constitution friends. Theres no right to vote in the constitution and then i realize okay its deeper than that. Our failing democracy is is Something Else and thats thats to answer your question. I think we need to back to shared common. As human beings, i think what we saw today or were going to see with this Dobbs Decision is a crisis in of compassion in our country and when i you know just anecdotally, you know been in an uber with someone that was, you know, very dogmatic about donald trump or whatever things when i shift the conversation to common values common value system. How powerful do we want government to be . Yeah how powerful nobody wants that nobody wants government deciding wet how you raise your children . Nobody government telling you. What job you can have whether you can enter into a contractor. Not none of this is spelled out in the United States constitution. So if we can connect around, all right, were humans and we have this shared value system. You set aside the republican you set aside the democrat and then build from that because once you do that, then you have to start making compromises. I know its a little pie in the sky it is its not going to be i mean our political system is is devastatingly broken. I still have hope but the structures arent going to save us and obviously the Supreme Courts not going to save us the only way this shining beacon of democracy in america is going to survive. Its for people to communicate and connect with each other again. Yeah, i do think the one step of the five steps that stood out to be the most is the tolerate piece of it because as ive been on the road traveling what i hear from everyone and the thing that dismays me the most is people have stopped talking to their neighbors if they have different political opinions, theyve theyve extricated themselves from family situations. That might be uncomfortable. I feel like those are the exchanges that can actually help us grow though by being introduced to other mindsets that are in our own dont you think right . And thats the concept of curiosity, you know, so i taught a class. Um during the first trump impeachment when covid started called democracy at risk and the students were anxious out talking about these things because theyre worried. Theyre on a camper that camp they get canceled. I mean it, you know, it happens across the political spectrum. So i said, okay. Youre going to read the Supreme Court case, but then i want you to bring two class two opinion editorials from legacy or respectful journalists that have different points of view on whatever the issue is right at the end of the semester. They said this is the safest ive ever felt to talk about hard issues and i came to class curious about different points of view. I also think teachers though and and you know sort of thought leaders need to manage the conversation right when people start going into dark areas of you know, im right youre wrong you have to bring them back to some common ground. There has to be leadership around that. So anyway that i think its a really powerful thing that weve lost and the book again is you can take out the five steps. Yeah thanksgiving uncle, you know milton is really is really difficult. How do you make it through a couple hours of Difficult Conversations the book the book lays out a fivestep methodology and i just want to say on methodology if you recall for any of you who watched the judge. Katangi Brown Jackson hearings, you might recall her being asked particularly by republicans over and over and over. Whats your judicial philosophy . She wouldnt answer it. Why because its theres no philosophy. Its not a black or white philosophy. Its a methodology. She kept saying its a methodology i take into account all different facts precedent. You know these the policy implications, you know the scope of my authority the arguments both sides and i erect what i call and i have students in the audience. I call it a framework, but its basically a decision tree for how do you noodle through something hard, right . Its a myth that theres one way to constitution is a myth that theres a onenote judicial philosophy just like at the myth that deciding whether to take the job deciding what how to manage your divorce, you know deciding on whether to get the the elective surgery. These arent hard. These are easy black and white questions and politics is no different. I think thats a fantastic point and i want everyone in the audience to know i could ask questions for a million years and i have them but if you guys have any and youre noodling on any i know theres gonna be time for them. Someones gonna bring a microphone around and someone can wave to me in the back when they want to start doing that because im sure you have questions as well. I think for me as ive looked at the arc of all the books that youve done on the constitution and on ethics. I mean, where do you think the next application of this goes . Wheres your mind headed next . Well, you were asked earlier sort of why i do this or what the idea is what got me into it. Its really taking law and relating it to peoples everyday. Experiences. Oh, i know what thats like like for example people ask me all the time for years. Can the president do that . Its the wrong question. The question is and not that its anyones fault. The question is if the president does that what are the consequences . Yeah, right, so, you know a speed limit if its 35 the pit the numbers not going to slow us all down. What slows us down is the machine hiding in the bushes and that horrible thing in the mail that you get for 50 bucks, right . Its the consequences. So thats just an example of how using your common sense Life Experience to tie to these bigger themes. So where is this going . I mean hopefully starting conversations in this way in small groups, and then you bring it home and and then it goes and it goes and it goes and we can start working against the dark forces enjoying hands again as people and and preserve serve what weve enjoyed and for you know, 230 plus years and you know, i have four daughters. I think its worth its worth saving but its not going to be by listening to cable news and politicians and frankly. Unfortunately the United StatesSupreme Court, which of course we love cable news. Im on campus youre going on on friday, please. Tune in but i think the one piece of it that we havent talked about is the way that people might establish their value sets. Yeah, and the way that perceived bias might seep into that and i wonder if theres any way that youve thought of or if theres any tips that you can give people for kind of as their formulating what their values are and also trying to understand what other peoples values might be how they confront their own biases to keep themselves just a little bit more open to hearing another perspective. Well, what i suggest in the book is literally to write them down. Yeah. Write your values down. I mean, it could be i mean i tell my kids that you know, they understand that you have to have integrity. I tell them thats one of my value systems you have to have integrity in every decision that you make you might be unpopular. Thats the tea and buy cat you might get people upset with you. But if you hold on to that lighthouse, you will always always find your way right and i also tell them, you know, you get knocked down you get up. So those are just examples you might know you have them you can find them from your faith from your religion or just take whatever the issue is say, its do i vaccinate my kid. Yeah i value health. I value education. Those two things can be competing right your child might do better in an academic setting in school, but you really dont want to vaccinate them because politically you feel that thats not appropriate for the government to require that theres your tradeoff, but if you can say to yourself, okay. End of the day my value really for my child is education then you can figure out how to make those compromises even if it means well, im going to have to take this one. Im gonna have to do vaccination because my child just really doesnt do well on zoom and thats my priority in my life. I really think honestly ali most of us know what they are. Yeah, just never had to write them down. And never really had to specifically put them down. And of course the number of people who go to church now is disproportionately percentage wise lower than in the history of america, right . So thats one place people learn some of these things and now frankly with so much policing on terminology, which im not a fan of because i think people need to learn and make mistakes. Its harder and harder to have these express conversations in schools. I think people have to do it. You have to model it for your kids and do it at home and do it in your personal relationships. Yeah and your classroom. I want to see if there are friends from the audience. I dont want to ignore anyone if they have them. We dont have to be shy here. I will continue to ask my own. Im just trying to give the opportunity. I think that when i when i looked at this too the last question that i had for myself was. All right. So are you just creating an army of lawyers here like is that the answer like all of us are just gonna walk around thinking like legal scholars and that that could be the answer to making us a little bit more tolerant of each other. Well, unfortunately, there are a lot of unethical lawyers. Yeah. Im not many lawyers deserve that reputation. So so i guess the answer to that is no but the goal really is to is to to give people a path to order out of chaos. And i like to think of that ying and yang same symbol thats really powerful for me. You know, you might have seen. Like a theyre like tadpoles. Theres a the black and then theres the white side and on the black side. Theres a white dot and on the white side. Theres a black dot and i think of that as order and chaos if we have too much order we die in the vine and were not growing as people so you need a little dot of chaos, but if you have too much chaos, youre free falling right and you lose sight of what matters to you and where you are. So you need order in that so i i think dialogues around these hard divisive issues learning how to to anchor our decisionmaking in our communication and a value system those kinds of things hopefully will give some order to the cast and i have to say law is based on a value system. Yeah, you know, there are other parts of the world where there arent really traffic rules if you want to drive up on the sidewalk if you want to blow through it stop sign you can i mean we have that in our culture because we value order in in traffic. We value maximizing safety. But that doesnt have to be the case. We value we value, you know life to the point where were not going to walk outside and allow people to blow someones head off with a gun and not have consequences for it, but that doesnt have to be the case. It wasnt always the case in in human history, you know, a lot of our laws are based on common law england. I tell my students. Its like bilbo baggins, you know, the jolly shires of england frolicking around there were no laws. There were no criminal laws. It was sort of clan based people worked that stuff out and then the king wanted some order and so he started the monarch started coming up with what we now know is common law things like, you know negligence and bands on murder and battering assault that just organically arose to organize our life right so we can think about law again as embedding our value system and its something that i think we all we all i it could benefit from and being a little more deliberate with that. I think one of my last questions for you is its also okay to walk away from those tough conversations. Thats something you write in the book, right . You know one of my other favorite lines that i tell my kids a lot is when youre in one of those power struggles whats powerful to me is to remember i dont need that other person to agree with me to have my own truth and adhere to my to what i believe right . We can and people say agree to disagree but thats a little negative. Its not even disagreeing. Its like listen, i dont need you to i dont need you to adhere to my point of view for me to still have my point of view. And thats a really powerful thing right that that you can let go of the rope and say thats okay. Im out of the power struggle. I believe my truth and again back to your sense of what matters to you be very deliberate about that and you can tolerate the fact that you might not have everyone like you right . Yeah. So your value set still written on a piece of paper somewhere. Yeah, its still written not piece flavor. Its its developed. I suggest people prioritize it for whatever decision theyre making it gives a lot of strength and the last point i would say, you know again i have kids and we all remember middle school, you know, and and theres power in groups. Hmm. Theres theres a sense of empowerment by being part of a group. We see it with clicks in high school and middle school. We see it with politics today. We see it with this encamped. Entrenched point of view right . Im on that team and i thats my house, right and thats my power. Its also a source of power to give people tools to make decisions for themselves. Thats another source of power. You could have a little bit of both and and what i positive and i suggest to viewers people that are watching this on cspan is to think about that. As an opportunity for feeling more solid in your life over the course of your life. We all have hard stuff. We all feel like were free falling. Its terrifying and were now clinging to and then clinging. I know at barack obama got a big trouble for using that word, but i do yes. I fit in in this camp, but there is another way and and you know lost those schools are still full of students studying hard paying a lot of money to learn this elite education. There is a way to think like a lawyer and the book tries to bring that that very Specialized Skill set into peoples living rooms, but you also manage to do the dance between the real legal and the court of Public Opinion, which is often the place that all these issues are being litigated in real time too. Right . Well, i see that as a privilege. Yes. Yeah. Its a privilege to be able to communicate some these things and frankly. People mad at me on the left and i get people mad at me on the right. Youre doing it, right . Whats your Political Party . Its not relevant. But i i do speak my own truth and and ill go you know on the merits with that with anyone and i welcome that but but theyre aligns right and there are lines that for me are around my value system things i wont cross and again, i think thats thats something that whether youre on tv or whether youre at home or in your workplace. You can apply on your own life. Im really thankful that we got to do this talk on today of all days such auspicious timing again to the audience. Im really thankful for all of you for being here and oh wait. We do have a question. Terms of important Public Opinion with the scandal of delete from the Supreme Court today. Im curious. What do you think the future looks like for the Supreme Court and did some integrity. I want to restate it. Yeah, i think its a great question and frankly one that we were asking all day of lawmakers. Which is the impact of this kind of a leak, which is so unprecedented. Although there was apparently a leak when row was first decided back in 1973 as well. But what it means for the integrity of the Supreme CourtGoing Forward to have a leak like this, you know, i i think that the focus on the leak is a is a bit off in that the integrity of the court has been been diminished now for quite a while and its not the leak. Its the courts ideological and i dont use this word lightly radical approach to constitutional questions peoples rights when theyre not elected. They are not accountable. Its we the people not we the politicians and what really where i got lost on this was with the texas law sb8 where you know, whether you like row or not. Its the law of the land the supreme. Court interpreted it its like a footnote to the constitution. I tell my students. Thats the top dog. Thats the boss of the bosses of the law and its not up to judges to ignore that right. When it came to sba 24 week viability test six week. The court said, you know what . Were not going to force the constitution when it comes to that one. Yeah. That to me undermines the legitimes legitimacy of the court much more than a leak and the other piece frankly weve lost sight of is is and i get this will get me in trouble i think with you know, again people around politics, but justice thomass room failure to accuse himself from three electionrelated cases one is wife was texting chief of staff mark meadows urging the illegal overthrow of a legitimate president ial election that to me i asked myself, okay. Why did he rule the way he did was he influenced was he biased by a personal reasons . To me undermines the court much more than a clerk who prematurely released. What is probably 99 of the judges decision that release doesnt necessarily affect. How the decision came out whatever happens those five are where they are. They might have tweaked some of the language but the court has itself to blame. For its diminished legitimacy, its its not its not about the lincoln educate say historically historically theres there have been leaks. Its not okay, but you know, hey, its washington. Yeah, you speak to the hyperpillarization of the Supreme Court that i think we are going to be dealing with the ramifications of for a really long time. Is there anyone else . Yes. I have two questions about your writing process in these books. So the first one is what would you say . Its been the most difficult concept or idea youve tried to through or articulate info at least in terms of making it real for people and then whats been the most . Surprising thing youve received in terms of feedback from folks as theyve read the book. Okay. So the first question is what does the hardest part of writing the book . I think it is what were talking about around lawyers. Is kind of getting over the stereotype that lawyers are really aggressive that lawyers are winning at all cost thinkers that lawyers get involved when people cant resolve things to to sell it as a selfhelp book or as one someone i think one of the most moving pieces of feedback i got was from a a radio host in california named jason downs who said you know, he read the book and he thought of the show ted lasso. And ted lasso, of course. Hes a hes sports team team i win i lose but why people love to have lasso is because he doesnt approach the world. That way he approaches the world with cake curiosity and tolerance and and all of those things. So that was one of the the best things i read. I also i you know, i read online. Someone say well i read the book and i still cant be my lawyer. I mean thats the thing that thats the deductions, yeah, thats a good takeaway anyone else. Yes. Im a minister and i have some concerns about roe versus wade from a ethical moral and legal perspective. As a minister from a protestant tradition i believe that thats a issue between the woman and her spouse. Now some might disagree with that, but im a protestant minister and i believe that one goes to god for themselves that we dont need an intermediary. I the Roman Catholic church and a lot of the evangelical churches have been against roe versus weight. So my question is where is the church . Where is the church in this discussion . Well, i i as i might have mentioned the very first sentence of Justice Alitos draft opinion talks about the morality of abortion. And so i think your question is important and that it kind of gets to the first step of the bycat breaking things down. Where is that conversation supposed to be is it supposed to be . In the hands of the government whether that be a state legislature that decides that abortion at any point is okay or one that decides which i think were going to see that at the point of conception. Its illegal and thats the case even in the case of rape or of you know, involving a child. You know questions of faith are complex nuanced thorny weighty difficult questions. Theyre not questions that are at, you know, Something Like this that are answered in a black and white fashion. Now, we have a twopart test number one Justice Alito. Is it expressed in the constitution . If its not. Then number two, is it is it . Embedded in deep history and tradition and then the question is okay. When do you look at that . Just as alito gets in his time machine and goes back to the the framing of the various parts of the constitution when you know people color had no rights and women of any you know any race had no rights couldnt had no right to your children if your husband divorced you couldnt contract couldnt own property couldnt vote couldnt legally be raped by your husband. So i just think to answer your question. It should be it should be between a person and their their maker their belief system their families their own value system and i would say for those people that dont go to an organized religion again number step two, you know, identify your values go internally, but it shouldnt be in the hands of politicians and certainly shouldnt be in the hands a five human beings who are not elected and are not accountable and dont represent and reflect the very nuance complexities that this issue presents primarily for low income women. I just want to say yeah 75 of abortions are for our experienced by women who are low income 50 below the Poverty Level which shocks people the Poverty Level is about just under 12,000 per year. For a Single Family household you know people on the Supreme Court cant begin to fathom. What an unwanted pregnancy when you already have a couple of kids that you know, youre working shift work . You dont have health care. You have an abusive boyfriend. They cant begin. To answer the complexity of that problem and no one runs around saying and i cant speak from experience, but i think theyre very few women that see this as the easy out the easy option right . So you have a what you ask a very important question and i guess the majority would say well were sending it back to the states we agree with you. Thats why why were taking it away. From the constitution i just think you know in theory the constitution is there to implement a baseline of a value system and that is about a limited government that we dont want government to come so become so powerful that it can encroach on our personal physical autonomy are private spaces with our family religion etc. You know, the First Amendment is really true lots of articulated rights under the First Amendment the First Amendment doesnt say anything about freedom of association. This is assembly this is expressly expressly protected. But if ali and i want to go out for a bite to eat. Thats association. Theres nothing in the constitution that says government cant say you know what we dont like this relationship. We are going to penalize ollie and kim for having a relationship. We are going to make that illegal. And or were gonna spy on them. Were gonna bully them. Were gonna audit them. Not in the constitution. Is anyone in america comfortable with giving giving the government whether its state local or federal the power to make that decision for us . I dont think anyone is thats whats at stake with roe versus wade. Church and state prior to 50 years ago on roe versus wade it was against the law. For a woman to have an abortion well with roe versus wade it became legal or allowable. Lets say well, even before row it depend. Ed on state even before row it depend a state what roe versus wade is about is constraining the power of states to make that decision for a pregnant woman right that its a hard decision, but its not a decision. For government off to make its a personal decision. Thats really what its about. Its about confining the power of government. Its more about that than it is about. What should the individual woman do about her personal circumstances and its been framed improperly in my view. I think, you know the debate has been too much around the woman versus the fetus. Yeah. It should really be about how much power do we want government to have versus your faith minister versus your spouse versus your family versus your your own internal value system versus your friends etc. Thank you. I think the only thing i would also add to that right is that the conversation also doesnt necessarily take immediately into account the idea that rich women will probably always find a way to get an abortion but it becomes that much more dangerous and women could be seriously hurt and die if these protections are taken away. I think that thats also sometimes lost here too. Yeah. Its a stunning thing. This gets to my first book on the constitution poverty. Not something that the Supreme Court is recognized as relevant to your constitutional rights. We hear about Police Reform bail reform and you know innocent until proven guilty. Thats actually not in the constitution believe it or not. Its not anywhere in the constitution well, but if you are a lowincome person whos arrested and you cant make bail. You can serve your entire sentence. Without having a single day of process or trial. Thats a that is a mechanism of poverty. And this gets back to my other point. We have a crisis of compassion in this country. Thats the problem. Were thinking at things in these black and white political issues not in our common humanity and when you do it, that way things get a little clearer, i think and and people along the political spectrum have to give and take some things because you know, what i say is, you know vote at the ballot box for the person you want babysitting your kids or the one you want to teach your children or the and thats your best friend when youre sick, and you know that you trust to take care of the stuff in your house or whatever in your in your lifetime that same value system. Probably, you know as much as any other walk of life should inform who you give this massive power of government to right. What if i if i were to kidnap you . I would go to jail the police throws you in the Police Officer puts you in a squad car. Thats an arrest. Government has powers you and i do not have they need to be constrained. They need to be constrained and this court. Is did the opposite a grand is the power of government minimize the power of the small person that should worry everybody in america republican democrat independent. Noncitizen. Everyone should be worried about that. I dont want to cut anyone else off from questions. So a last call. Yes. Actually i actually have two quick questions myself one is like i just picked up a copy of each of these books. I im looking forward to reading and myself as a possible. I can have both your autographs on them and second sure thing. We can do that afterwards right beautiful and second. I know the right way to ask this, but ill give it a shot. Even though i dont im not as much of i dont watch msnbc as much as my parents do oh, you dont religiously but i would say im autistic and ive been wanting to look into both law school and the legal field myself since youth and im in with no with to get until i got two political which is my thing anyway, but i would ask if they were like any specific any yeah any specific influences, like like how you got started and stuff. Oh, thats a great question. Honestly. I dont im probably guilty of going to law school because i was a really good. And it was time to go to more school. I dont know but its definitely i get a i get it i get a buzz about when it comes to thinking through thorny problems. That gives me a measure of joy, and i also like to communicate in and so those two things with other people and those two things i think are part and parcel of logically one of my colleagues to my respect deeply mike meyerson. He he tells his students and ive borrowed this, you know law school make you smarter. And its not that it makes you you know your cognitive capacity higher, but it does make you smarter and more agile in noodling through hard problems and again if theres an easy answer, theres no role for a lawyer and there are plenty of lawyers what it means is that most of law like life is great. And again, thats what the book tries to get at. So thanks for that question. Thank you all. Thank you all so much for coming and kim. Thank you so much for all of your candor and your amazing insights into both this moment in political history. And then also the ways that we can take it home with us and be smarter ourselves. Im really thankful and everyone should be picking up a copy of the book as excited as our friend here, and i thought it was a great read. Thank you so much. Thank you ellie. Its been really an honor. I have this conversation. Yes. Thanks to kramer books and see sam