this photograph shows justice william brennan and richard arnold and grinin's chambers in 1960. the occasion as the beginning of richard arnold's clerkship. he has also just become a member of the arkansas bar candy is the supreme court justice, william brennan, to swear him in. it was an interesting time to be in washington and at the supreme court's allitt relatively early era in what we know of is the warren court. some of you may remember these billboards that could be seen throughout the united states. in part is the reaction to brown versus board of education but also as the reaction to some of the other decisions of the warren court, and you can see the message there. szabo republic, richard arnold could see some of these billboards on his way to work for justice brennan in 1960. this was part of his background and his experience before he was appointed to the federal bench on two occasions by jimmy carter. so, when he was at harvard law school in 1957, he found a violent up for at central high school in little rock both distressing and personally embarrassing. leni reach

to take to judges that i like, brennan and thurgood marshall, both of them were just hanging on hoping they could out live reagan. [laughter] and then, maybe bush will be defeated after one term, as he was but they quit when bush's popularity was very high and looked like a shoe-in and aegis believe they could accurately out of a second term. but, there is no good in people hanging on past their prime and most of the justices do that. the other thing i went through all the 20th-century judges with the standard, what did they add to the american jurisprudence in the course of their career? and with the exception of bill brannon, every single justice that i looked at had within 18 years accomplished everything jurisprudentially that they were going to offer to american law, so i don't see any need for an added term. this is about a quixotic question as one could have and not surprisingly, if you took a vote among the supreme court justices about life tenure he would finally get unanimity on a fairly divided court. >> wait for the bloom for one second. it will drop on your head. >> if the

and so, you know, i think that's a shame that some of the brennan papers, you know, men brennan, when he willed them to the library of congress, put certain restrictions on when batches of papers could be released. i think that's a shame because they do offer such a sort of vivid insight. the brennan clerks at the end of each term composed a memo that summarized the major cases of the term and every case which brennan wrote, and they'd go through the deliberations of the court and the deals, and it's their rich material unlike anything else that i'm aware of in the court files. other, you know, other little bodies of papers, the fbi file on warren which is some 2600 payments, i -- pages, i think, took a long time to get, and ask i'm lucky that my wife happens to be a first amendment lawyer and helped that along considerably. i did not feel at the end of this that there was anything that i couldn't get that i needed. but some of that court material is sort of at, a bit hard to get to. and my own view is that the ease ye -- easier it is to get to, the better off we are. and if that mean

he had no right to be disappointed with brennan and i think the notion that brennan and let him down in some way is silly. in the case of warren, i think they misunderstood. ike misunderstood a certain aspect of warren. warren. he saw worn and believed he saw something of himself, a republican moderate who saw his opposition coming from taft who also rejected much of the new deal. he saw that centrist republican international isolationist and i think what he didn't get about war worn his sworn growth in the tradition of california progressivism which is a kind of entity unto itself and i think warren was a more predictable justice van ike thought he was if ike understood that aspect of his personality so that is responsible for that divergence and -- anyone else? with that i think maybe we will call it a night. again i thank you very much and appreciate you being here. [applause] for more information about jim newton visited "l.a. times".com and search his name. >> well there is a new book out called "courtwatchers." eyewitness accounts of the supreme court history. claire cushman is

he was no right to be disappointed with brennan. the notion that brennan let him down is silly. in the case of warren, i think they miss understood a -- misunderstood a certain aspect of warren's political growing up. he saw warren as believed he saw something of himself, a republican moderate who saw his opposition as to coming from taft, who also rejected much of the new deal, saw him as that central republican, internationalist, not an isolationist and imagined they were more alike than they were. warren grew up in the period of californian progressivism, an entity unto itself, and i think warren was a more predictable justice than ike thought he was if ike understood that aspect of his penalty. his personalty. i think that's responsible for the diversement and disappointment. anyone else? with that, i'll call it an evening, and i know tim wants to come back that, and with that, i appreciate you being here. [applause] >> for more information, visit latimes.com and search his name. >> on your screen a eli, a staff writer with the "washington post" who wrote "ten letters". what

the brennan study did a great study on this and that is available on our website. especially in a changing country i don't know how we can expect to have a coherent social ethos and workable democracy if we don't teach each generation what the history is and ideals are. civics in school has dropped off the curriculum and been pushed out and there is a tremendous loss in this very issue of fighting for the right to vote and fighting for justice. when you think about going back to that very beginning of the american creed which was obviously not actually how people lived in 1776 but it was the idea that people returned over and over and the abolitionist returned to it, par phrased in the progressive era and every since and people are saying we are trying to live up to the founding ideals of the country. when dr. king at the march on washington said this country will rise up and live out the creed of all men will be treated equal everyone knew what he was talking about and i don't know that maerpsual know that. there is an understandable and justifiable skepticism abo

i think there's nobody on the court today who would like a justice brennan or a justice thurgood marshall think of the constitution as an engine to be harnessed for a certain kind of social progress. i mean, that's not -- the liberals on the court, and i use that word very advisedly, have been playing defense for a long time. i mean, maybe because there's, you know, they don't speak for a majority, but i think it's, it relates in part to just the personalities of the individuals and also to the realities of the confirmation process that i talked about. i mean, somebody who has, you know, deeply progressive roots, activist roots you might say is not very likely these days to get nominated or confirmed. so, um, on the more liberal side of the court we have, um, you know, very mainstream, middle-of-the-road people. now, on the conservative side there's been some social science research that has identified this court as, in fact, the most conservative kind of center of gravity on the court that we've seen in many decades, and using certain metrics. .. >> are there any reproductive rights comi

in that respect, he's very different from justice brennan, who was well known for, i don't want to say sacrificing his principles, but using his ability to strategically engage with his other colleagues to bring other people into opinions, if he really needed to leave something out, to bring other people in, he would absolutely do that. i think that kennedy has written far too many individual solo concurrences and solo dissents, where you've seen nobody else join him, that he really -- really is much more in that second category where if he believes strongly about something, you are not going to get him to diverge away from that, which has been one of his -- one of the reasons why he has been able to be such a strong actor at the center of the court, because if he's been assigned to write that majority opinion, he's been assigned it probably to keep his boat, which means that to a large extent, as long as he doesn't go way out, he's able to put into that opinion what he wants to. but he has certainly written an awful lot of opinions, where nobody else has been willing to join him. so i

at that time in the course is you, bill brennan was still there and controlling a lot. the liberals, even though there were more republican appointees, the liberals had a bit of an hand that did not sit well with him either. >> host: we will talk in a moment or two about some of the opinions. >> guest: great. thank you. mika brzezinski what are you reading? >> "the glass castle" and jeannette used to work at ms nbc. do you know her? she grew up in west virginia under the most unbelievable conditions and she writes about it. and hashish use her live through a glass castle of this existence with a very mentally ill mother and a very poor existence. and it's a book that i'm sure with my daughters. and then she has another book out just now. i can't remember the title of it but i'm going to move on to that one. i have to get her first win under my belt. >> you also are writing a book. tellis. >> is out on january 5. i'm a little nervous. is called "all things at once." and it is about the search for the ability to admit to myself that i love to work. and it is important to

. >> in 1987, a small working group of sandra day o'connor, byron white and bill brennan, drafted a law clerk code of conduct, which i think was slightly tweaked, and then in its final form was adopted by the court in 1989. now, you and i can't write the court and ask for a copy of this code of conduct because the supreme court has refused to release it to the public, which i think is problematic unto itself but i found a copy of it in the personal papers of thurgood marshall. the code of conduct says the law clerks have a duty of confidentiality to both the court and they're justices, because there was some suggestion at the time of the leaks that maybe one or two of the justices authorized the clerk to go off the reservation and talk to the press. regardless of whether that's a good thing or bad thing in terms of living in a democratic society and being transparent, that blatantly violates the code of conduct. even if a justice authorizes you to talk, you're still violating your duty to the supreme court as an institution, and over the last 20, 30, 40 years, we have seen repeated inst

she writes, she is correspondence with justice william brennan in california -- william denton in california was a dissenting judge to try to use his decent arguments to fdr. and she doesn't make that publicly. she finally splits with fdr in 44 and comes out against him. but there's that very painful silence, and you can tell how distressed she is because she writes it chills my soul to think of american children behind barbed wire. so you can see. the second thing is, it's hard to explain but it has to do with, with some internal behind the scenes deliberations about how to get breckenridge long fired. and breckenridge long, was a very old political ally of fdr. played a huge role in his nomination in 1932. and she has developed relationships with what we would, you know, five years later called zionists. and she is appearing in pentecost, especially in communities where there has been violence. and so what she's doing is these camps -- this dance, this dance between using, you know, not a ceiling of the government in refugee apology, in my day. but she's making it very painfully clear on t

year after year they changed cases -- they changed the law. 1964, justice brennan's famous opinion in your times against sullivan revolutionized by the law. 1965 justice william o. douglas, griswold v. connecticut, the case that established the right to privacy that married couples should not be denied the right to buy birth control. 1966, miranda versus arizona, revolutionizing criminal procedure and perhaps more importantly changing television dramas for ever. [laughter] >> 1967, perhaps the best named case in supreme court history, loving v. virginia. what was it about? it was the case that said states could no longer ban racial intermarriage. think about that, 1967. there are people in this room who were on live in 1967. [laughter] and it was still illegal in a lot of states for racial intermarriage. when barack obama's parents got married in kenya, i'm sorry, i mean -- if such a cheap joke and i apologize for that but it does remind me, you know, everybody knows mitt romney is having a rough patch as presidential candidate, but all right, all right. but a sentence i have not hear

so there was frustration and he also didn't like -- at that time in the court history bill brennan was still there controlling a lot so the liberals even though they were more republican appointees on the court the liberals had an upper hand that did not sit well with him either. >> host: okay. while we will talk in a moment or two about some of the opinions. >> guest: great, thank you. >> "after words" and several other c-span programs are available for download at podcast. more job with joan biskupic and tittles an analyst. >> "after words" with judd alan biskupic and ted olson continues. >> host: joan, at the end of the conference for some reason -- i mean, they don't, right? the votes are tallied up. they've each casting vote, right? >> guest: that's right. >> host: someone writes an opinion, whoever -- tell us how the opinions -- >> guest: we are talking about private conference the justices have after they've heard oral arguments and everybody results a case and the taking a vote. and the majority side is then going to prepare the opinion for the court. and the most senior justic

as time went on, he became a bit more reclusive, but justice brennan would constantly -- whenever invited -- give talks to honor the legacy of justice marshall because he believed so strongly in that. so i think he was very reluctant to talk about it, and it was a matter of great sensitivity, and i hope we handle it with the sensitivity that it deserves. .. was point be damned with the test was. if the issue was that women need protection under the equal protection clause because they are being discriminated against in our society the important point is and whether it's the most rigorous test or only slightly rigorous test. the point is can you do something to bring women under the equal protection clause and recognize the harm of gender discrimination. and so that was the basis of much of his negotiations was i will give away the fourth prong and settle for a three-pronged test if that means we can advance the interest of civil liberties and civil rights and constitutional law, and why would you be obsessed with the test rather than the civil liberties gold you're trying to achieve. >> w

in 1964 justice brennan's famous opinion against the revolutionizing rifle was important in the protection for the press. 1965 justice william o. douglas, griswold versus connecticut, the case that is published the right to privacy said married couples couldn't deny the couple to be denied birth control. chief justice warren's opinion in merten versus arizona revolutionizing the criminal procedure and perhaps more importantly, changing television drama forever. [laughter] 1967 perhaps the best name case in supreme court history, loving versus virginia. what was the case? it was the case that said states could no longer than racial intermarriage. think about that. in 1967. there are people in this room who were alive in 1967. [laughter] it was still the legal and a lot of states for racial intermarriage. when barack obama's parents got married in kenya -- i'm sorry. [laughter] it is a cheap joke and i apologize but it does remind me. everybody knows mitt romney is having a rough patch as presidential candidate but a sentence i have not heard a word anywhere if only donald trump had been the

[applause] dot justice brennan - this only came in 1982 justice brennan slipped it in a footnote of a 1982 opinion. it is utterly outrageous fraudulent. the judge as you can't attest very smart, not a friend of social conservatives. this isn't me speaking. a few years ago i quoted in the book and he conquered for the sole purpose of adding the conference said what you end this policy it is not in the constitution. pass the past the wall tomorrow and end it. not only does it have to be ended and this would save california, i want a retroactive [applause] what if we had a mentally devotionals agreement with justice - [laughter] not that hard to imagine who says all of america or all of the world is a citizen of america or are we all going to honor that? because that's what has happened with the anchor baby policy. >> make sure kennedy takes his drugs this morning. [laughter] yes, what if we had a. so the anchor policy the wall the moratorium. we need a complete integration memorial so this isn't just about - this isn't just about latin america or mexico. i don't want european immigrants

. >> seth stern and steven wermiel recount the term of justice william brennan. using documents which will not be released until 2017, the authors detail the negotiations and debates that occurred on the high court during justice brennan's tenure. they discuss the book at politics and prose bookstore in washington d.c. the program is just under one hour. ..

ron, exactly where you and jack brennan and all of us got together at walter reed on march 28-march 31, 1969. spirit and our last question. >> i love the book, and the question i have is, when he went off to high school, your grandfather wrote you a letter because sergeant mooney had indicated that he wanted you, his grandfather to give you possibly a portrait of you to bring to college. what was your decision? >> a painting of my granddad or sergeant mooney to hang in my room at college, he was always giving me little pins that he got and ike ties, and he's giving me these things to give to growth to impress the girls and so forth. [laughter] as this comes through, and looking back over the correspondence, you know, my first reaction was like and cringed a little bit because i remember not passing these things along and being a little embarrassed by the suggestion. but then i thought, you know, we are grandparents, and you just want us to be proud of him. and we want our grandchildren to be proud of us. [applause] >> so i thought, i think he had the satisfaction of knowing that -- i c

[applause] >> but justice brennan this only camin' 1982. 198 2. justice brennan slipped it in a footnote of a 1982 opinion. utterly outrageous. fraudulent. justice -- judge richard poser who you can attest, very smart most cited federal judge not a friend of social conservatives. this isn't me speaking. a few years i quote him in the book he concurred in an immigration opinion for these sole purpose of adding a concurrence, this said, congress would you end this anchor baby policy in it's not in the constitution. pass a law tomorrow and end it. it's not only got to be ended but -- this would save california -- i want it retroactive. [applause] >> this -- what if we had a mentally delusional supreme court justice -- not that hard to imagine -- who says, you know all of america -- all of the world is a citizen of america. are we going to honor that? because that is what happened with he anchor baby policy. >> make sure kennedy takes his drugs this morning. >> yes. what if we had a. that was -- so, anchor baby policy the wall, -- oh, yeah, the morato

do you think margaret brennan should be deported? [inaudible] >> i am completely persuaded. to people who were in regular immigrants. i wonder what we should do practically. will be an code in the law and amnesty policy? >> that is my proposal and it is not just hypothetical. the french had such a law that worked perfectly well that established a few live there for seven years without authorization your given legal status. as a practical matter you say wait a minute, we worry about getting too many people and this is an invitation, it seems to me the focus has to be on employers sanctions. you remove the incentive for people to work. we accept the premise you get to control these things. the focus should be on the employer's. serious regulation of employer sanctions. maybe another technique that needs to be used is id cards. various of these things -- there are tensions among these things. people object to employer sanctions wind up being used in a discriminatory way. that is a relevant moral consideration. it is often the case that whatever policy we adopt there will be obj

c-span: of all the people you spent time with and we named a lot of them -- hughes and brennan and warren and frankfurter and scalia and wilson and daniel webster, i didn't mention earlier, and landis and madison and reich and havel and weber and hayek and tocqueville -- who would you recommend if someone wasn't as familiar as you are with all this that they go out and pull the book off the shelf and spend some time with it? >> guest: i think i would read cardozo's "the nature of the judicial process," which is still available in paperback. i would read posner's compendium of holmes' writings. c-span: this is richard posner from chicago? >> guest: yes, richard posner. c-span: the judge? >> guest: the judge. i don't think i would read landis or hayek. they go on too long. havel is brilliant on this subject. vaclav havel understands how anti-human western democratic structures have become, and every year or so he'll write an op-ed article warning us against the effects of rationalism, the idea that we can figure everything out in advance and lay it out in a government structure and in a law

went to the white house with a hard hat with richard nixon's name on it and peter brennan later left the democratic party and became mix and's labor secretary, and that moment was really influential then turning a lot of unions away from democrats. so that in 1972 george mcgovern, the most probably prove lieber person in our history was largely rejected by the working class and by a lot of organized labor and the was just a tragedy that broke the party in half. >> they've managed to turn that question backend bill clinton captured a lot of those and barack obama captured some of them is at this point are the swing voters? >> they are swing voters i think for a buddy would agree. there was a point i was working on the book the obama -- the campaign was saying we have a strategy to win without ohio and you guys are crazy. barack obama one no white working-class and ohio. you can't give up on ohio and subsequently the president is leading in ohio. so, i think that a lot of the pessimism of even a year ago where people were saying you've just got to go for this exclusively for this new d

this is barclays bank, they bought the brennan seven lehman brothers services lehman brothers trading for 7,457th avenue mine back at the scene, not the scene of the crime but the same trading floor i used to work and i noticed in the corner office i said who it is that man in the corner office? and as he said to me, that is bought diamond, and i said it the ceo of barclays' capital? and he said, yes. how things have changed. things have changed in the sense that you have lessons learned hopefully, you now have the ceo of barclays' capital right there on the trading floor with the best and brightest paying close attention to what is going on. not in the 31st floor completely away from the battlefield. >> unit, and at the beginning that this was the end of capitalism in america but had you mean that? >> not the end of a capitalism has been changed forever because first and foremost you have the fed window, the federal government has now been assisting banks have to the primary credit facility. in other words, you have investment banks that are having access and getting help from the go

my two patients who were my best patients to assess to what justice brennan and justice powell. his inexperience to go down to the congress to see people periodically. the ugliness of what is going on is the racism that has gotten out of control. yesterday's example of bite and carrying on about unchanging. the only difference between unchanging and unshackling is at least people from princeton can spell shackle. but the real base for barack obama's minority america. the weaknesses he can't deliver. i have a theme and that is lots of people have asked about mitt romney's background, what he did as a kid shop enough hair. well, michelle obama was a director at the university of chicago medical center and is a much loved about what she accomplished in taking care of the with limited resources, limited incomes and that's extremely important especially since health care is a huge issue at the present time. >> well said. >> hi, charles smith. let me try and frame my question. i mean, you're proposing a number of structural changes, which i would hope would make a difference. assuming

he was a law clerk to justice brennan at the u.s. supreme court and join our faculty in 1973. he served as the law school's dean and went on to served nine years as provost of his great university. he's the author of more than a dozen books, including the casebook constitutional law on the award-winning book, perilous times, free speech in wartime from the sedition act of 1798 to the war and terrorism. he's extremely a within the community, serving on boards including the american constitutional society and the aclu an editor of a supreme court review. perhaps most important to her students he's one of our most popular and revered teachers in the city who do not have jobs already will see why in a moment. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [applause] >> i'm delighted to welcome you to the conversation about restoring justice. jack fuller spoke of speeches when he was attorney general. i want to begin by underscoring a phrase that attorney general holder uses in his address about edward levi because it reminded me of an incident i had with edward when he returned to the

and yet, the london times reported that it obtained a letter that the obama brennan is stray shin sent to obama saying to skop scotland we don't think you should release them but if you want do we will not object as long as you keep him in scotland and don't send them back to libya. in other words, it was the scot as officials quoted in the london times think when we got the letter we interpreted it as the american government at essentially saying wink, wink, we think it is okay to let this geico and they did let them go and today al-megrahi is a free man in libya. now, why would an american president do this? this seems impossible to explain and therefore people say well he must be a muslim. in fact, obama's father, barack obama senior, was born and raised as a muslim. his grandfather had converted to islam. obama stepfather, and in the nation, was also raised as a muslim. but interestingly, both those men became atheists. both those men rejected islam. obama says of his own father, barack senior, he began to give the muslim clerics sort of the way that a few the african witch doctors

brennan and erdogan. that knocked him down to a c+. you can't make mistakes like that, right? the supreme court appointed arches too precious for that to happen. george h. w. bush was a real problem. on the one hand, he appoints david souter, and clarence thomas. this is a real problem. how are you going to greatest? he ended up with a b. sort of other reasons he does decently. so no great surprises, i don't think but those are three that were and determined i was a. i didn't set out to find truman as a c+ or a d. or f. or something like that. roosevelt would have gotten three fs. obama is heading that way, too. [inaudible] [laughter] >> another question? >> so you argue that there are kind of two presidencies that we see. the early presidency and the modern presidency. you focus your attention on modern presidency. by the standards that use, though seems to be up to apply to the early presidents as well. so that would make kind of a more interesting book, maybe the early presidents have a better philosophy of the constitution and the actions are a little more positive, does t

yell, brennan and warren. that knocked him down to a c plus because you can't make mistakes like that. their precious for that to happen. george h. w. bush was a real problem. from the one hand he appoints david souter and clarence thomas, this is a problem with the the exam how are you going to grade this? she ended up with a b, other reasons he does differently. so no great surprises i don't think those are three that are undetermined i will say. i didn't set out to find truman as a c plus or d or f. roosevelt would have gotten three f's or lubber if there were one for each term, with wilson and obama is heading that way, too. >> give them time. [laughter] >> okay, other questions. >> you argue that they are kind of -- with the heritage foundation -- to offer there are the two presidency's we see, the early presidency and in the modern presidency and focus your attention the book on the modern presidency. the standards that you use seem to be applied to the early presidents as well so that would make a kind

receiving his law degree from the university of chicago in 1971, and working among others justice william brennan of the u.s. supreme court, geoff has been on the faculty of the law school at the university of law school ever since. and in this -- in the time since he has served as both in his time at chicago he served both as the dean of the law school for a good period, five or six years and then as a provost for ten years. he will bring his own great experience to this discussion. he teaches rights and rights primarily in the area of constitutional law. he's written numerous distinguished books, several of which have gathered an impressive number of awards. he's currently editing a 15-volume series entitled "inalienable rights." you'll have to pronounce that one when you get up here. including chapters by the luminaries of political philosophy and history. a past book that is especially relevant to tonight's discussion is "eternally vigilant: free speech in the modern era" goeff is a american of the arts and science academy. our second commentator will be matthew goldstein who is currently the

so president obama's top counterterrorism adviser for the first four years was john brennan, who is now the cia director. they would meet frequently in the white house to discuss the drone wars, and this escalation of drone strikes in the last several years. now, your question was about who sort of authorized it? it basically depended on which country the strikes happened. in pakistan, the cia director, who was leon panetta and then david petraeus in the first term, had the authority to call in drone strikes without getting each one individually approved by the white house. in -- if it was outside of pakistan, though, there would have to be a discussion that john brennan ultimately, president obama would have to approve. for instance, in 2009-2010 when strikes in -- missile strikes in yemen increased, those were discussed in the the white house. the national security council or elements of the national security council met, and they had to approve each individual strike, so it depends on the country. >> so mark mazzetti, president obama does approve every drone strike, personally? >> ou

natural politician on the supreme court, probably the most natural on the supreme court since william brennan, one of your sources told me after the book was written, so aggravating. [laughter] >> that will be in the paper. sandra day o'connor had a laserlike sensitivity for people's emotional state. she could read people better than anyone else that a successful woman had ever met. i don't know if she were asked to tell hillary clinton what to do, if she could explain to clinton what it was that she could do, it is like magic. and charisma is related to the concept of magic. a wonderful anecdote about this. and o'connor clerk came to interview with o'connor for the much coveted position of supreme court clerk from the chambers of ruth bader ginsburg. the liberal dc circuit judge at the time. otherwise you don't get in -- to interview with a position. the republican appointees's chambers. she and o'connor are chattering away like old friends and o'connor says did you like clerking for judge ginsburg? it was so wonderful, to clerk for a judge where you agreed with her. on every single thing sh

and president reagan said to brennan and all along is all i'm interested in is getting them out of the embassy. and you get them out and i will not say a word about it. so the deal was you let them out and i won't crow. well, about two months after they left the embassy, they were fially allowed to immigrate, along with all their family, some 60 people in total. and ronald reagan did not crow. it must have made a deep impression on the soviet union. they must have said to themselves, apparently this man really does care about human rights. it's not just a political gadget of some kind. and also they must have said to him, you can deal with this guy because he keeps his word even when it must be tremendously tempting to crow. he didn't. he kept his word. but anyway, the point that i'm trying to make sure and you see in it these letters is this intense feeling for the human being. ronald reagan was known and is known for his strength of purpose and i think the letters show very clearly that the strength of purpose comes from a depth of thinking. if you have thought about an issue careful

light footprint, lower cost, more targeted, can have more control from the white house, you know, john brennan, now going to the cia. had far more control over how elements of that war were played out, as opposed to afghanistan, which was you give the troops and then the generals good off and do their thing. i think the president's relationship with the military is has sort of evolved a little bit, but it got off to a bit of a rocky start in the first year of his first term. >> host: you want to take a senator rubio water break? >> guest: i'm good. go by the mic and i'll take that guy. >> your focus is on iraq and afghanistan, and you certainly pointed out the ineptness and incompetencety that has taken place, which makes me wonder if it's possible for us in the future to ever go into a war without making a total mess of it, and if so, what do we need to do differently, we need to change, or just continue to screw these things up. >> guest: well, a couple different things to say about that. we shouldn't forget bob gate's parting comments right before he retired. where he noted the cadets at we

in honor of that series, we bring you mary brennan, author of "pat nixon," at 2:30 on sunday. then at 7 p.m., rachel swarns in her book, "american tapestry." for more information on the first ladies' series, visit c-span.org/firstladies. on monday booktv continues our programming with lawrence wright on scientology, michelle alexander on the new jim crow, max boot on guerrilla warfare and jonathan katz on haiti aid, just to name a few. watch these programs and more all weekend on booktv. for a complete schedule, visit booktv.org. >>> here's a look at some books that are being published this week. earnest free berg, humanities professor at the university of tennessee, recounts how thomas edison's invention of the lightbulb in 1879 transformed the united states. in "the age of edison: electric light and the invention of modern america." in "the terror courts," jess bravin reports on legal issues surrounding the prosecution of alleged terrorists by military or commissions. former boston global reporters dick lar and gerard to kneel recount the life of whitey bulger, fbi informant

and then the first week of the season this year we did it with sports writer chris brennan who's an old friend of ours and also a patron of the store and one of the foremost sports writers in america. again, had a great time. i just want to add, you know, this may be with serendipity, but one of our customers did get a foul ball. so that was fun. >> oh, never happens. >> it did for politics and prose, so you never know. you know, we have day trips to falling water. we've -- we're going to do some i'll war battlefields, some other kinds of interesting local day trips. we have two trips to france this summer which are sold out, and we're almost sold out of a trip to us canny, a writer's retreat which is going to be fantastic in october. and lastly, chris mentioned the espresso book machine, and i won't go on. there's a lot of other things we're doing, but that gives you a general sense. the espresso book machine for us, we're trying to drive more people to it. it's been a really interesting source of self-publishing. i think people who want to self-publish have been really happy with it.

a really interesting case study of the civil rights years is hazel brennan smith. hazel owned the lexington advertiser in these years, a small town north of jackson, mississippi. her story is so, so compelling. in fact, at one point, i want to say in the mid '90s, she was the subject of a tv movie. and her life is truly the subject of a tv movie. she was a southern belle, graduate of the university of alabama, and like so many journalism graduates of that era, she wanted to own her own newspaper. and, by golly, she did. she went to tiny lexington, bought the local newspaper and made a success of it. she proceeded, as she liked to recall, to the date every eligible bachelor in town. she darn near succeeded. she ultimately met some fellow on a cruise, brought him back to lexington, they got married, and she ran a fine little newspaper and was making a good bit of money. hazel was a segregationist. she very much was reflective of her time ask place. and place. but you know what? she believed in justice for all and that citizens should be treated equally. now, she thou

>> guest: it's our reference to a speech that john brennan gave, who is now set a director, he was formally the advisory he was taught by the wars outside the war zone. early on the obama administration. and he said in contrast to the wars in iraq and afghanistan where the united states has used a hammer, he said we, the obama administration, can use a scalpel. it was an idea i had that scalpel certainly applied a sos free. surgery without obligations. but we see that's not the case in a lot of places. so i thought i would take his analogy and make it a nice because nice fights are a lot messier. >> host: steve, california, you're on with mark mazzetti from "the new york times." >> caller: this. the united states has not declared war in over 70 years. the wars we thought, korea, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan have all been basically unconstitutional. we seem to have given up any a semblance of pretending to declare war, congress seems to have no stomach to declaring war but obviously no problem fighting them. i'm wondering whether or not you think that the militarization of the cia, potential c

operations forces like north africa lower-cost, targeted to have more control from the warehouse john brennan had far more control elements were played out to as opposed to afghanistan. the president's relationship has devolved but it got off to a rocky start the first year of the first term. >> host: you need a break? >> i am good. [laughter] >> your focus is then iraq and of guinness stand you pointed out to what has taken place is it when -- possible to go into war without making a mess? what do we need to change? >> we should not forget bob gates parting comments right before he retired where he noted in a future president to start a land war in asia needs to have his head examined. that said despite the enormous cost of the iraq and afghanistan war given a vast understatement the unsatisfactory on come and probably a great desire not to engage in a war like this again we cannot assume we will never be called upon to do something like this. if deicide regime falls tomorrow and there is the international coalition not just to safeguard the with the initial aspects there will be certain ele