"saving justice." and i'm here because i worked as one of bob's assistance for two and a half years we are friends between 1974 and his death last fall. but i need to open with a compression. i can't say very much about the book. i'll talk instead about bob bork, the man and solicitor general. the reason i can't say much about the book is his principal focus is his first six months on the job. she plead guilty and resigned as vice president when he persuaded the supreme court to stop justice douglas' crusade and the u.s. from persecuting the vietnam war. but he fired archibald cox as the watergate special prosecutor and appointed thee into risky to replace him. and when he served as acting attorney general for three months between the ted elliott richardson designed and william saxby was appointed. not bad for one's first six months on the job. the title saving justice comes from bob's decision not to re-sign this saturday night massacre, which by the way should've been called the saturday night involuntary manslaughter. [laughter] because nixon didn't plan it, but just wandered into it. bob believed the president has the authority to control everyone in the executive branch into fire and subordinate personnel. whether your president is wise to exercise that authority is for history to decide. the attorney general richardson had promised the senate that he would maintain a special prosecutor in place and he thought that he had to resign when nixon asked him to fire cox. the bork had not made any such promise in that the president to dig his own grave if he insists. he also thought they should not gain and certainly should not appear to be attorney. he planned to quit. richardson and william ruckelshaus deputy attorney general talk to that of resignation. there is no line of succession in the department of justice after the solicitor general. so if bob had walked the plank, the department of justice would have been leaderless. no one knew who the president might install. richardson, ruckelshaus will fear that it would be a political shell, leaving the assistant attorney general in the department leadership to re-sign and crippling the department. so bob bork see justice by stating. had he quit in protest that he probably would've been treated as a national hero and confirmed in 1987. do it to paul stevens. he was on the list photography be sent be sent to president ford of possibilities. but heavy quit combat the nation as a whole would've suffered. so he stayed in office, in the sg's office. he was so determined not to benefit that he turned down an opportunity to be appointed as attorney general. he turned down the chance to work from the attorney general smart aleck in office. he avoided the attorney general's private dining room and even turned down the attorney general chauffeur limousine or the time he was acting attorney general. i can't say much more about those times. they occupied the last six month of 1973 united not arrive until may 1974. but everything bob bork says in his book he set in 1974. richardson, ruckelshaus and the people who work with him most closely then such as admin kitchen keith jones tell the same story. and bork's narration is entirely consistent with the man i knew for 40 years. intellectual, considering consequences before acting and absolutely honest. he's also the funniest man i ever met. that didn't come through in his 1987 hearings that the book is full of wit. the life of a solicitor general at the life of a judge's reactive. other people decide the solicitor general control of the government presentation to the supreme court. the petitions to file, what responses to file, oral argument in the solicitor general also decides in the government will appeal an adverse decisions by district court or the court of appeals. the solicitor general has authority to decide when a federal they meet the eye and the supreme court or court of appeals. it's a broad portfolio that requires a large base of knowledge plus the ability to learn fast. the solicitor general does not control with y and doesn't start the process within the justice department feared cases that a writer for out to litigating division civil, criminal and thérèse, and grants a natural resource and environment. then make recommendations, which go to the assistance. sometimes there's an internal conflict. the department of justice include the criminal division and those people always want to defend guards and seized their presence. sublimates divisions tends to favor and somebody has to resolve those on assistant to the solicitor general may think the criminal division statutory. prosecution is weak. the solicitor general has to resolve those issues. bob bork connected many not only within the government, but also here presentations by private counsel. it's one of the else's traditions that anyone that he can't come kerry i can be hurt by the solicitor general personally for united states files a brief in the supreme court. but prepared carefully and as sharp questions at these meetings. as he said in the book, he tried to advance the position of the executive branch, not his own fears. i never saw him favors on position and misunderstand. you conflate knowledge, understanding and intellectual integrity. i plan to tally the stories behind three of these cases. but first i want to mention the last of the solicitor general's tasks, oral argument. bob bork was the best oral advocate is any justice to tell you any argued a lot. twice every session are 14 times the return of the supreme court. his successor as solicitor general attempt to argue between five and 10 cases a year. not bob. he loved to give and take great on his feet. often the main task of an advocate for the united states is to find a new argument to replace the bad one that lost the case in the court of appeals. sometimes the task of an advocate is to patch up the holes in an argument pretty presented the brief, trying to do the justices to say something like well, you didn't make this argument earlier, did you? when you just move along? it takes gravitas to get the justices to listen. the first time i saw bob inaction, he had to pay for a argument. congress had taken over the bankrupt guerrillas. the really see, intending to live with them, to two schimmel taking and should be enjoined. delete argument that the united states, a priest of god had not been a carefully because there hadn't been any conflict within the government before it was filed with congress and the interstate commerce commission had failed so often in the operation of railroads that the rabbits just had no rights at all that they were entitled to rely on. the problem with this argument is if it were to prevail congress could pass a statute by claiming a right to do anything he pleased any time upon it with anyone and their property. no more takings. justices went out to buy that. justice douglas perhaps. but for serious justice. the solicitor general work to the oral argument himself and scuttled the main position in the brief. he withdrew it on his feet and advance a different position, that the tucker act with her fight any compensation due to the statues could not be enjoined. all the takings clause does this provide money after the fact. that argument but while. he sponsored the legislation legislation in the house, have been given times to argue it was there to defend the original argument that congress had for so long he had whimsically in the river business that it acquired an easement across the cross. once adam scott to his feet, all the justices cared about was bob bork's argument about the tucker act. representative adam straight to free himself from that theme by telling the justices the house and senate between them had not a moment about compensation survey should forget about the tucker act. what a blunder. the tucker act applies unless repealed. adams had just told the supreme court that the tucker act far from being repealed hadn't even come up in the discussion. it didn't take the correspond to issue a unanimous decision deciding the case bob works way for bob works reasons. here's another sample. year after he left the office, bob bork issued about user repair the credit card carried a bit of interest in weslaco in the state with the banquette headquarters but illegal in some states for customers use the code. the arrival thing in elementary state in his rental content of the issuer receipts and its location ticket and jerry by stealing customers. the replica of the first argument to be going to say. the rival slayer got one soft question after another. then bob bork out but not the legal argument, but an observation about economics. if the issuing bank really was charging excessive interest, interest higher than the rival bank, he was doing a favor for the rentals. consumers should clock. maybe with higher interest because it's taken on riskier customers who are less likely to replace peer customers with poor credit would go to the high-interest bank. good credit to the low-interest bank. everybody would have some business and everybody would be that iraq is almost as if they were an invisible hand. then he produced a fine. as an advertising agency. instead it hired a lawyer. you should send it to the right specialist. [laughter] after that, bob bork had the justices eating out of his hand. it didn't take the correspond to issue a unanimous opinion in his favor. i've never seen a case turnaround so neatly by an appellate. that may come out to the three case studies the solicitor general bork soul and the government position. the first is on the supreme court ever decided. the boston school desegregation dispute. and saving justice, bob bork says he first came to the next menstruations attention after writing an article content in the had overused bus transportation in school desegregation cases. the book contains a description about a meeting at the white house were bob's discussion of the supreme court decision impress nixon went to the effort to draft legislation corporation was charles alan wright and what khaled, a shocking story from today's it is the president rejected the bill before it was sent to congress. when bob work became solicitor general community school cases are pressing for attention your chief justice burger issued a careless attention that many principles followed by another reprieved inflammatory. bob wanted to set things straight. the fundamental divide at the time was between people who equated all racial balance the segregation one accords to order racial balance. people that the constitution limits government use of race except as a remedy for racial violations. if private choice but to balance there was no violation. litigation in boston presented an ideal opportunity for this contrasts to reach the supreme court. the district judge in court of appeals had held explicitly racial balance in the schools was itself a constitutional route and the appropriate remedy was therefore to order that every class everywhere in the school system had the same ratio of black and white students. it required a lot of transportation, but the real issue was the goal and not the means. many groups as the solicitor general to support the school board until the supreme court to grant reverse. a bob's direction, i wrote a brief attendant judiciaries proper goal is to undo consequences of official racial discrimination, not to undo the consequences of private choice. bob a-alpha customary meetings to hear all the views. these became attorney general defeat took an interest. here's the problem. the school board had engaged in contempt of court to define some aspects of the district court's injunction and many residents of boston engaged in violent. the supposedly liberal city had begun to act like little rock in the 258 and the mayor was sounding like wallace. what should the united states do with a serious intellectual problem, but what bob bork as the supreme court to indicate his decisions, which is mine as well in a way that would appear to give support to violent. the climatic printing without an attorney general leave his office in the last day of the united states could file a brief. copies have been printed. they were ready to go. attorney general they began the meeting by recalling lifelong support the civil rights movement also opined the brief was legally correct. jay stanley pottinger the assistant attorney general for civil rights argued strenuously against filing. he made three points. the brief is incoherent. no one could tell that the go standard it can change. two, the brief was profoundly misguided would damage the list for schoolchildren. there is no need to file the brief because the civil rights division are to have implement tenet standard for more than a decade. he did not notice only one of these three initially and consistent points could be right. though all three might be wrong. at the end of the meeting, my recommendation was not to file. i'd written a brief and i acquitted myself, but i can't know conker should be given to the violent. solicitor general bork also recommended not filing. that cost him a lot. he knew this would be his last chance for influence in a subject you care deeply about. but if that discouraging defiance was more important and attorney general bv agreed to solicitor general bork. this one in my hand may be the only copy though perhaps al gore cannot really be retained copies for their files, too. i'm sure earlier tests photocopied by the civil rights division for the benefit of the price lawyers. that group made a stiff wire tape. the supreme court adopted the standard of the unfiled boston brief. history tells us attorney general pottinger was wrong on all three points. papa bork did not play a role in the process. keep out of their values are more than he deserves great credit. he got not the time or later. if you read his brief, you'll notice -- i'm sorry, if you read his book, notice it doesn't mention it. he did his is the ticket the last word on the subject kept out of the supreme court at the time. and that to me exemplifies his integrity. the second thing that concerns buckley against the layout challenge to the federal election came a knock brought to the supreme court by senator james buckley with ralph winter, bob bork's friend from law school. the federal election campaign act set contribution and expenditure limits for federal offices and i'll submit the federal election commission independent of the president. according to the press to take politics out of politics but for possibly shift the balance of political control as congress in the coming end away from the president challenges. solicitor general bork some of his s.w.a.t team for cases. reran dolphin went to work on a brief in my stand is one of history's curiosities. the brief filed, and i quote, for the attorney general and the united state goes to great lengths to explain why speech and money are interchangeable come away surely would the first amendment is to set a limit on how much "the new york times" could charge him either further serious problems for the contribution and expenditure limit statute. next time somebody tells you a contribution or expenditure limit for an election is just about money and that money is speech, you should reply that "new york times" to consolidate its just a case about money for tort damages at the naacp against claiborne hardware was money for economic injury businesses in the alien and sedition acts were just lost that imprisonment. and not by "the new york times" is a corporation and therefore according to its own editorial policy was on the wrong side against sullivan and has the right under the first amendment. most churches 06 distinct tort reforms. the brief didn't say that final line in there for the statute is unconstitutional. it's up to the justices to draw their own conclusions. it's always a very risky step. by this failure to go the limit on a subject without which bob tran three had such strong views? signatures on the brief tells the story. it was signed attorney general bv, solicitor general trend rate and the guy without a title. on the same day, attorney general bv, solicitor general bork, friedman and another guy without a title of the brief on behalf of federal election commission at the united states is a party defending the constitutionality. the department of justice managed to be on opposite sides of the same case as a party and amicus curiae. so if you think buckley is not opinion sustaining some section indistinguishable from others infantilized okay because of the sewer nyro be limited to the core political speech, it had an odd genesys, too. something about the subject that seems to preclude straight talk and honest analysis and not as far as i'm concerned is a good reason why it should not be regulated at all. framers of the constitution of political speech and activity needed protection from legislators. from legislators, number and judges come to it, they are afflicted by self-interest that disabled the analysis. if you want to see a real dispassionate analysis,. this one about the events leading to the immigration and naturalization service against trotta one house veto case which didn't reach the supreme court until after bobby knight that the government had participated in setting up. during the ford illustration the department of justice brain trust, attorney general bv come as close and legal counsel scalia included in common with almost all of their predecessors in the 20th century to the legislative veto of administrative regulations but bicameralism and causes of the constitution. every tv set out to any judicial decision as many of his predecessors had not. because we expected the question to arrive swiftly in the supreme court, soul-searching full text this is about to start but anyway, no one would've dreamed of taking a position without consulting robert trent greek and bork succubus his staff. you may remember the statute and if they resent the lack of agency x issues rule by, if not to take affect until one house of congress and the sometimes too, one committee disapproves in three days. several barrenness starting with article i, section one, which says all powers are vested in a congress of the united states, which includes a senate and house of representatives. the powers and congress, not in any house or committee member to components in article i section seven clauses two and three. the house and the senate shall be presented and the other causes every order this solution is necessary shall be presented in a particular way. to sum up and i'm not going to read these out to you. congress asks by agreement of its houses following which the president can sign or veto. the legislative statutes reverse the proposition by allowing the president or his agencies to adopt some law following which they would be vetoed by one house or one committee. those they elderly text are the real constitution and they've created something of a problem. i've bork had lunch with his assistants almost everyday in the legislative veto cannot because the department of justice is trying to set up a case that would reach the supreme court. the conversations went like this. i will reprise my own role as well as trade trees. the constitution requires the concurrence of the president proposes a rule in one house of congress or unit committee chairman with talking power doesn't go along, then concurrence is lacking. but isn't this consensus be the test of the constitution even about the exact form that its origination of the executives. bork. that's not what the constitution says. the administrative state not only is constitutionally questionable, but also stifles free enterprise. legislative vetoes rename the agencies. should we welcome this development, which also promotes constit