Off to the side, trying to pretend they are not happening, that is a career ending proposition for them. That is the first thing. The second thing is making the Justice System work in Holding People accountable so that their we should stop pleabargaining. We should stop lowering charges. If some of the evidence is clear and there is a conviction we should be drumming these offenders out of the service with dishonorable discharges as publicly as we possibly can. Should be making examples of them. One of the things that appears to be true although the data is a little bit squishy, back in the time of iraq when we had the surge and we had the army had to grow the force very quickly. And they were keeping people in a place, not stoploss, they were extending and pulling out all the stops. Part of what happened during that time was the army in particular granted an unprecedented number of waivers for people who had criminal convictions, Domestic Violence convictions, rape convictions. Some of the serial offenders that have been found in the Sexual Assault domain are people who have those waivers and this people need to be found in driven out of the force. That was a mistake. Thank you. Thank you. My name is julie thompson. Graduate student of international affairs. I am glad you talked about how the number of women in the pentagon has grown since the 1990s. I am just wanted to ask you about how that is continuing to grow. I feel that as somebody who wants to be a National Security professional, we still feel as women that we are minorities and in our classes and internships, there is still not enough of us. I wanted to ask what advice do you have for women starting out a career in security but who want to be in your position . What advice to you have . First, and in, the water is fine. Do not shy away from the heart Security Issues or where women seem to be a minority. It gets better with every administration, round of appointees. Women coming out of securityrelated our graduate programs are fully half. The pipeline is there. The jobs are opening up more and more at the top. So i think by the time you get there the opportunities will be there. The second thing i would say is to the extent short of actual harassment when you encounter bias, one of my first meetings 29,he pentagon, i was civilian, female, democratic appointee. My counterpart who was a one star general said what is a nice girly do like you doing . In a week he will have no question about why i am here because i will knock his socks perform. How well i and she isible woman not incredible because humans to put a sentence together. Its like the talking dog phenomenon. , let it be the other persons problem. Focus on being excellent, focus on finding those buses and mentors who can see you for what you are and who appreciate your work and who will invest in you and promote you. That is great. Excellence is always a cure for that kind of smallmindedness. Look fascinating to listen to this. I study women in politics. I have a question and you just mentioned in your advice, dont shy away from the heart Security Issues. It makes totally good sense but i was curious with the question about should that be an mr s or career path. Oftentimes that is not good for their career. Do you think this might be a dangerous career path for a woman seeking a career in the military . My worry about at thisionalizing is stage in the development of this issue, my worry is that is a fed i am theit becomes male infantry, i do not have to worry about this. Where i am the senior general, i do not have to think about this. I worry about it being used as a way to, we have these special women who deal with these womens issues as opposed to mainlining and mainstreaming and integrating this into how we think about approaching these operations at large. I think that part of this will depend on how the broader integration of women into a range of career fields but you would have women where they can pass the standards, women in a brown in a broad range of ground units. They can also be trained, to have that as part of their additional duties but it would theytally integrated and would not have to recreate it or is a special thing that others may that might marginalize the issue. Lets go to the side. Good evening. Graduate. My question is what about race . Very fewround the room people of color here. Color in thele of military. What conversations are happening about race in the military, and defense, insecurity that you have had experience with . When you look at National Security at large, the statistics, the military have done a better job at integrating people of color than the rest of the National Security apparatus. It is much easier to find qualified women in the pipeline thin it is to find people of color. You look at the phd problem program. Things were doing to ,s a demonstration project there is a thurgood marshall. Ollege fund and to create a pipeline for interns to be trained and have to launch into Public Service in the federal government, we are tiny. We are a tiny little thing but we will prove the concept that this works, you can find qualified talent, you can train them, you can make them and then we will go to any other think tank. We create more of a pipeline. Trying to hire, the pipeline was appalling in regard to people of color. We have time for one more question. I read with great interest about two women in the special army. In the it was breathtaking what they accomplished and went through. For men and women. I could not help but think in reading about this, if this really necessary and i know you mentioned little bit that maybe some analysis was being done on exactly what is necessary to do these jobs. We have done it in police departments, we have done it in fire departments, and we found that there was a lot of stuff that was not really necessary. Is there any work done, is there analysis being done, is that even touchable . I thinkhat that work will be done, not a lot of waivers are requested, that will drive a much more rigorous approach to say do we really have the standards right because the truth is the standards for a marine corps platoon will be different than a standard for the ranger battalion. Most men wash out of ranger training. They are the cream of the crop. Theyre doing things that we do not ask other people in the military to do. You have to go specialty by specialty and define what are the standards to do the job well. That is going to take some time. The scope of that effort will depend on how many waivers are requested. But where waivers are requested i am quite confident that kind of work will be demanded. It is being done in a haphazard way that is not necessarily rigorous and objective. I think some of this has been done internally. I do not think that will be found to be acceptable. There will be a much more impartial and objective approach that says, that is looking at this issue. If the waivers are perceived on a large scale. Thank you. We are about to take a 10 minute rate but before we do, join me in thanking our guest. It describes the effort to theg the manmade world and Natural World and harmony. To bring youthfulness delight to our whole environment. Only begin with trees, flowers, and landscaping. Lady bird was about beautifying the nation, her signature issue as first lady. She was a successful campaigner and businesswoman and partner to her husband lbj. Lady bird johnson, this sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans first ladies. Examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the positions of first lady and influence on the presidency from Martha Washington to michelle obama. Sunday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. A signature feature of booktv is also a coverage of book fairs authors. Onfiction here is our schedule beginning this weekend we are live from austin for the texas book festival. The following weekend, we are in in nations heartland wisconsin, madison. At the end of the month, we will be in nashville with the southern festival of books. At the start of november, we are at the boston book festival. In the middle of the month, the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. At the end of november, we are in florida for the Miami Book Fair international. And the International Book awards from new york city. In 2012, the Supreme Court deemed life sentences for juveniles to be unconstitutional. This week, the justices have a normal argument on whether it would apply retroactively to courts prior to the courts decision. This is one hour and 15 minutes. Your argument first this 280,ng in case 14 montgomery versus louisiana. The issue is whether to decide there is wrecked activity in this case or the federal hate be as case such as johnson v. Mannus number 15 one on todays docket. There is no jurisdiction on the question because the point of it is to enforce the supremacy clause. The supremacy clause states that when the law applies, the judges keywords in every state shall be bound thereby. Asre is no such thing separate federal law that depends on whether a particular state voluntarily makes federal precedent finding. That, or thes state voluntarily adopt nonbinding federal precedents, that creates no right under federal law, which is what 1257 requires and michigan does not apply. How would you describe the adequate state ground in which this decision rested . Richard bernstein i would say the lack of the binding federal law question is an antecedent requirement to borrow the terminology before you get to the adequate and stake out it now just. Next so i dont have jurisdiction to answer the question . Bernstein whether he is constitutional required in state collateral review reports in the second part of our brief said why it is not constitutionally required in state collateral review course and that is this courts precedents back to the beginning in the fifth and itsan had said that exceptions are matters not matters of the constitution. Statute oneral kbs its face only applies the statute onlys applies on its face and it releases and warranties under. The state says great knowledge we are holding a prison in contravention of federal law, but we choose to do nothing about it, then the answer is federal habeas corpus and there is not the second answer that the state could be under supremacy clause to enforce the federal law, if i were to argue the second position, im not sure what kiss would have to support me. Yourrd bernstein i think honors opinion for the court at 1319tinez v. Ryan to 1320, suggested that there deciding the federal kb is right rather than what the court called a freestanding constitutional claim. The major advantage is if you say that the state courts are bound by the exceptions, by the constitution, then when it goes befederal habeas there will reviewed. If you say that the redress question as the rationale indicated in state court is a matter of state law, then when the issue goes to federal the state court would not have decided the federal issue. There is a major difference. Youd be weakening the federal statutetute habeas the court would benefit from lower percolation in the habeas courts are should be out the window because they will only be able and the court revealing them on appeals to apply the highly differential head work. Just kelly saying that the supremacy clause warrants are we saying that the supremacy clause wants the states only directt only in criminal proceedings . Richard bernstein it would be that the supremacy clause only binds the states in direct precedents and collateral proceedings where it is an old role because that is the equivalent of the right proceeding. Talking about the retroactivity of a new rule, then that is where the exceptions apply, new rules and collateral review, and those are basically statutory equitable discretion rather than the constitution. The court has already held that the wreck review and the implication of the bold move present federal questions. differentiate this case from standard oil. Richard bernstein the issue was the underlying status of the federal government arm, and the court said that question is controlled by federal law. Standard oil is like miller sl, where the issue was what does the eighth amendment require . That is the federal issue imply, and standard oil as accommodation of statue, regulations, and federal law, and federal law controlled the question. Here, the statute does not apply other casesrt like have go, like the federal rules of evidence do not apply in state courts, even though many courts follow a similar provision and certainly follow federal precedents in interpreting them. Justice we did say that state could define the exemption Richard Bernstein in any which way it wanted. And many which are it wanted. Richard bernstein correct. Justice we announced what the federal law is, and the state said they would follow it, but i guess it might or might not be free to change its mind about doing that. Richard bernstein i think the difference in what makes this case special is the court has held murdoch versus city of memphis, almost 150 years ago, 87 from 326 10 327, the 1267 jurisdictions question by question. It is not like 1331 case by case, it is question by question. I do not believe the court has jurisdiction to skip over the question of whether federal law theies and then answer hypothetical, is federal law applies, what would it be . I think the question of whether federal law applies justice lets think of the first exception. States hadt many sedition laws that makes certain conduct unlawful to the 1000 people in prison. This court in the new role holds you cannot criminalize that behavior. What is the law that would make that retroactive to people in prison . It sounds to me that it is not like some kind of statutory discussion rather there are human beings who are in prison who are there without having because any valid law it was always protected by the first amendment. If that is right, it is the constitution, the due process clause that says they are being held, even though they committed the crime 22 years ago, they are now being held in confinement without due process of law because you cannot criminalize their behavior. Do you see where i am going . That being so, it is a federal constitutional rule. Richard bernstein in your hypothetical, respectfully, i do not think i would be a new rule. Justice i have made it a new rule for the purpose of a hypothetical. Richard bernstein if it were a new rule, then fourth and going all the way back, the justices and parliaments opinion and mackey said we are not greeting the substance of exception because the constitution requires that justice the case was the states could be more generous, this was the opposite of generous, could they be more stingy . Maybefind anything i will read it again but i cannot find anything there or in danforth that answers the question, so i thought it is any question, hence, that question i posed to you because i want your response. I do not think you can answered by means of precedents. I think you have to figure it out without the help of precedents. Richard bernstein if it is a held,le, the court has and sorry to cite the precedent, but there has been much activity on collateral review that it is not constitutional. Justice that is to put that we have tnt says we do not like the letter. Thenre saying that we have maybe that is wrong. Why doesnt violate the person inon to hold a prison for 20 years for conduct which the constitution forbids making criminal . Richard bernstein it does filing the constitution. Justice it was not criminal at the time. Richard bernstein it was at the time he was convicted, right . Richard bernstein fair enough justice fair enough. The constitution, according to the cases, is satisfied by the federal habeas. Is thereernstein anything else you could say . There were some people in salem who were imprisoned for being a witch and lo and behold in 1820, it was held by this court that that violated the constitution. Made the more outrageous example of the same thing. I wanted to say, i got your point, it did not violate the constitution but i also got the point that you have authority, anything else . This courtnstein has been reluctant, even when there was a violation of the due process clause, to create a judicial remedy and imply judicial remedy on federal statutory remedy, that is cited in our brief. Just as that is not what is happening, mr. Bernstein. If you assume justice that is not what is happening, mr. Bernstein. If you assume the justices hypothesis of keeping someone in prison who has not been criminalize, the state has set up the collateral review mechanism. You are not asking to set up a new mechanism. It does have the collateral review mechanism. The only question is whether it will comply with federal constitution law in that collateral review mechanism. Richard bernstein the other question is whether that issue of retroactivity is itself a , ifral constitutional issue it is, obviously, there is jurisdiction. If not, i would select there is not jurisdiction, and that the proper remedy is federal habeas, if i may reserve the remainder of my time. Justice thank you. Mr. Chief justice and the miller versus alabama establish a new substitute role prohibiting mandatory life without parole for juveniles which should be applied after actively. This court has jurisdiction to hear the claimant because the louisiana Supreme Court relied exquisitely on jurisprudence. In miller, this court held that mandatory life in prison was unconstitutional and it also held that life in prison would be an uncommon, even today. As justice could you just say we have a Fourth Amendment and the federal constitution has a Fourth Amendment. We are going to apply our own constitution, but in applying it, we will follow the federal precedent. I think we would say, in that case, that the case has been decided on the state constitutional grounds, even though the state court was interpreting the ground. Even though it is looking to federal decisions. Mark paisance in this case, your honor, the federal court of louisiana did not state it was exercising independent grounds at all. Justice ive got the case is cited said that . Cited an earlier louisiana Supreme Court case which made it very clear that it les following the federal ru as a matter of discretion and not because it had to, and it could in a later opinion decide not to follow federal law. That was my interpretation. Was myisance it interpretation that the louisiana Supreme Court said we have a choice. T and they made the choice to applyeague. And they may be trusted to apply teague. They