Thanks to you, 2009’s Arlington Reads program was a greatsuccess!
Over 500 people participated in our events, attending book discussions, the Supreme Court reporter panel-discussion, and Jeffrey Toobin’s Q&A and Author Talk. In addition, we’ve had over 8000 hits on this page since it went live in February.
But we still need your feedback! What did you love about Arlington Reads 2009? What should we have done differently? And most of all, what should we read next? Vote in the poll to the right, and give us your book recommendations for Arlington Reads 2010 in the comments section below.
And thanks again for making Arlington Reads 2009 such a great event!
Now you can watch professionally edited excerpts of the April 30th Student Q&A with Jeffrey Toobin, online.
Or check the APS’ Channel 70 program guide to see when the full program is aired – the next broadcasts will be this coming Friday, May 22nd, at 9pm, and Saturday May 23rd, at 10am.
Thanks to the wonderful people at AVN, we now have the full (and professionally edited) video of Toobin’s Author Talk at Central Auditorium.
Check it out – he talks about which Justice might step down next (if only Souter had announced his resignation a few hours earlier…. ), and who President Obama might chose as the next Supreme Court Justice. And he’s funny!
Jeffrey Toobin with 2 people who helped make the technical part of the Q&A possible - Hildi Pardo (APS Distance Learning & Production Specialist), and Jeremy Koller (APS Producer/Director & Composer at Arlington Educational Television)
Library Director Diane Kresh listens as Jeffrey Toobin answers a student's question
In light of Justice Souter’s announcement last night that he will step down from the Supreme Court, here’s what Jeffrey Toobin said yesterday at the Q&A with Arlington High School students, regarding possible nominees:
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, and the law review president almost always becomes a clerk for the Supreme Court. But Obama did not become a clerk - he went back to Chicago and started running for State office. Obama likes politicians – look at his Secretary of State – Clinton – and his Cabinet in general. All 9 of the current judges were judges before they came to the Supreme Court, but go back to Brown v. Board of Ed, and in 1954 none of them been judges before joining the Court - they were all politicians. So I think Obama will choose a politician, not a judge. VA Governor Kaine? MA Governor Duval Patrick? Janet Napolitano?
And in response to the question of how race and gender are currently affecting the Court, he said:
Ginsburg has said that she never thought she would be the only woman on the court. All the old arguments – especially that there aren’t enough qualified women coming out of good law schools – are over. And if Ginsburg leaves, he’ll have to appoint a woman. There’s also never been a Hispanic Justice – Sonia Sotomajor would be a good choice.
Legal Times reports that Mark Levy, DC lawyer and veteran of 16 Supreme Court arguments, was found dead in his office this morning. Police are investigating his death as a possible gun related suicide.
And, Justice Souter, for whom many of our audience at the Court Journalist Panel Discussion last Sunday professed much fondness, announced this evening that he plans to retire. Check out Lyle Denniston’s SCOTUS Blog post from 10:15 this evening.
APS students filled the School Board Room for the Q&A
Toobin talks about why he wrote The Nine instead of a legal thriller:
He says that Rehnquist recognized that the Justices believed what they believed, so he set up the Court so they didn’t have to communicate much in person – ‘good fences make good neighbors’. They could do everything by memo instead of in person. This surprised the public - Why wouldn’t the Justices talk to each other, since they can’t talk to the public? But they just don’t socialize. The exception is Ginsburg & Scalia – they have things in common – both from NYC, both still have NY accents, were both on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals where they became friends, both love opera. Ginsburg is a shy, retiring person, while Scalia is brassy and outgoing – but Ginsburg’s husband, Marty, is similar. Also, Marty loves to cook, and Scalia loves to eat.
Toobin tells a funny story about David Souter being mistaken for Steven Breyer:
Diane Kresh – Getting the in depth look at Sandra Day O’Connor that we got from The Nine was a surprise – can you talk about that?
JT – She is sort of the protagonist of the book. He says he’s always been interested in the intersection of personal and political. O’Connor came to the court relatively young, only 50, and she had to make her way in the Court, in a relatively conservative Court, and an increasingly social conservative Republican party. The Terry Schiavo case really alienated O’Connor from the Republican party - she didn’t think the government should be involved. At this time her husband was getting Alzheimer, and the government telling a family how to deal with a critically ill family member really bothered her.
Toobin wants to talk about students right cases in the Supreme Court, because this is a high school audience. He refers to the Ibuprofen/strip search case that was argued last week, and it looks like some of the students haven’t heard the case details. Toobin says students at school have many less rights than people do in normal life. He moves to a Supreme Court case that started with the Olympic torch passing through Alaska. A student who held up sign on the torch-route that read ‘Bong hits for Jesus’ was suspended from school. The oral argument included the question ‘what exactly what does Bong Hits For Jesus mean? The student said it didn’t mean anything, he just wanted to get on TV, but even so, the Court said that the school had right to discipline him.
Now for the student’s questions. Alan from HBW – with the Democratic shift in the House and Senate, and the only power for the Republican party being through the Supreme Court, what do you see to be the future of the Court?
Yesterday, the voting rights act argument was the last of this session – Conservatives look like they’re going to strike it down, setting up what you’re talking about – the House & Senate set against the Court. If Obama serves 4 or 8 years, he will have several appointments, but regardless Toobin sees conflicts ahead, especially in the area of race. Affirmative action is unconstitutional – but that’s something the congress is not going to agree with.
TD from HBW – Who would Obama appoint?
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, and the president almost always becomes a clerk for the Supreme Court. But Obama did not become a clerk - he went back to Chicago and started running for State office. Obama likes politicians – look at his Sec of State – Clinton, and his Cabinet in general. All 9 of the current judges were judges before they came to the Supreme Court, but go back to Brown v. Board of Ed, and in 1954 none of them been judges before joining the Court - they were all politicians. So Toobin thinks Obama will choose a politician, not a judge. VA Governor Kaine? MA Governor Duval Patrick? Janet Napolitano?
A Yorktown student asks about torture cases – If one reaches the Court, what do you think they’ll do? (anybody know his name?)
Right after 9/11, people were taken right off the battlefield in Afghanistan, straight to Guantanamo – the Bush administration said ‘these people have no rights’. But in a series of cases between 2003 and 2007, the Court each time said, “no, these people do have rights, and the procedures set up by Bush admin were insufficient.” The worst times for Court have always been war time, when they get swept up in war fever. The WW2 case on Japanese internments is the worst example – now all Justices say it was wrong. But the precise question before Obama is whether anyone who authorized torture should be prosecuted - and that’s not a Supreme Court choice. They only get involved if prosecution is appealed.
Jordan from HBW – a question about Clarence Thomas:
Justice Thomas is one of the most interesting of the Justices - he arrived on the court after tumultuous hearing, and he is still very bitter. Thomas never asks question – he didn’t ask a single question last year, he spoke not a single word. But at the Court itself, he’s very popular, gets along with his colleagues. But as you can see in his book, he’s bitter about Liberals. (watch a funny anecdote about Scalia’s take on Thomas)
Steven from HBW – Why do you think abortion rose as the most important case in the court?
See video – Toobin says the case affects everything
McKenna from W&L – How do race and gender affect the choice of who should be appointed to the Court next?
Ginsburg has said that she never thought she would be the only woman on the court. All the old arguments – especially that there aren’t enough qualified women coming out of good law schools – are over. And if Ginsburg leaves, he’ll have to appoint a woman. There’s also never been a Hispanic – Sonia Sotomajor would be a good choice.
Will from W&L – how has the dynamic between Justices and their clerks, who are sometimes gay, affect the Justices, and what’ the time frame within which we could have an openly gay justice?
When Bowers v. Hardwick, about whether consensual sex between men was illegal, came to the Court in 1985, Powell said to his law clerk ‘are there really gay people?’ The Clerk himself was gay, but he didn’t tell Powell. – This is an example of how much the world has changed – even the most conservative Judge couldn’t say today that he doesn’t know any gay people. But this doesn’t mean that the rights of gay people are a solved question. So it’s going to take a while for the an openly gay person to sit on the Court. But it’s also quite possible that Obama will appoint an openly gay person to a lower court.
Elizabeth from HBW – What were the best and worst students rights cases?
Tinker was best – bong hits for Jesus case worst.
Matt from HBW – does having a split court hurt the court’s efficacy?
Toobin’s view on this is different from that of a lot of people – Roberts said the Court needs to be unanimous, but he disagrees. People will always disagree – compromise isn’t always the answer.
Jeffrey Toobin, author of TheNine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, will give an author talk tomorrow evening at Central Auditorium, 7pm.
What do you want to ask Jeffrey Toobin? Here’s what we’d like to know:
What was it like to actually sit down and talk to the Justices? Did they meet your expectations in person? Did any of them surprise you? (alternate question: which Justice was the biggest Rock Star to you?)
What made you want to write The Nine? And how long did you think about it before you started?
How hard was it to get people to talk to you about the Justices? Did anyone refused to do so?
Did your opinion of the Justices and the Court change through your research and writing of The Nine? (okay, that one’s boring and predictable, but it does need to be asked….)
What would you ask? Add your questions, and we’ll try to get them answered!
This was a fantastic panel discussion – the speakers were friendly and funny, and shared a lot of great insight and trivia. Unfortunately, the discussion moved quickly so there were definitely questions and answers that I missed. Hopefully some of the video clips will help to fill in gaps (we didn’t have a tripod, so some of them are a little shaky).
We’re listening to the panel – Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Sherman, Toni Locy and Tony Mauro – talk about the Court and electronic journalism, and the amount of access the public – and journalists - should/could have to arguments and decisions. Tony Mauro says that Renquist used to meet every two years with the Supreme Court press corps, but Roberts is better – they get to meet with him once a year. TM also says that the Court still does not want to allow cameras into arguments, but that with the new website that is going up for the court, that may change.
Now for the first question from the audience - Knowing the Judges fairly well, can you tell from their arguments how they’re going to vote on a case?
DL says that any time she guesses how the vote is going to go, she’s wrong. To her, Alito has been the most interesting justice during oral arguments this session. Kennedy ask more pragmatic questions, Breyer uses OA to ‘float around the ether and test out notions’ – ie: they each use the OA to do their own thing, so it can be hard to tell where they’re actually going with a decision.
TM – 90 questions can be asked in a 30 minute argument, with the Justices asking questions on top of each other. Scalia is also so dominant in OA, that TM has to remind himself afterwards that Alito’s only one Justice, and not 8. Also, there are stories about lawyers fainting during OA in the 1950s because it’s so intense.
TL – the arguments are so fast that even her shorthand can’t keep up.
Next question is about the strip search case (I didn’t catch the whole question, but it’s about how the Justices reacted to the argument, and why they ruled the way they did):
TM – Ginsburg has recently said that she’s lonely now, being the only woman on the Court – she was outrage by the strip search aspect, and by the male justices not getting how bad a strip search could be for a young girl.
DL – As a Supreme Court Justice, Ginsburg has tried really hard not to wear her gender on her sleeve, but since O’Connor has left, she’s made it very plain that she thinks the male Justices really don’t get it on gender cases. You could feel her bristling over the fact that Breyer couldn’t understand how forcing a 14 year old girl to shake out her underwear isn’t the same as changing for gym class
TL mentions that DL wrote a column recently about a study: when a woman is one a 3 judge panel about sex discrimination, the male judges on the panel will often change their votes to reflect the woman’s perspective. But 8 to 1 may be too much for G to affect. (I’ll look for that column)
Are women counsel treated differently than men by the Supreme Court? And do women still have to wear dresses/skirts?
TM – Women in pants suits is okay these days. But there may be justices – Scalia has actually said this - who don’t like male lawyers with ponytails. One big question is about the new Solicitor General, who is female. Solicitors General usually wear mourning coats – what will the new SG wear? Apparently this is big Supreme Court gossip.
TL – Never noticed if female counsel get treated differently, but they – the lawyers who argue cases before the Supreme Court – are such a small, elite club.
DL – she once wrote about a woman advocate who she felt got beat up more than a male colleague would have - that they never let her finish her sentences. She got a lot of angry mail back.
Was post traumatic stress mentioned in the argument about the strip search case last week?
MS – it was part of the written argument
TL – she dropped out of high school
MS – the Justices didn’t talk about the range of things between searching her backpack and searching her body that could have but didn’t get done, such as searching her locker, calling her parents and detaining her until the got there.
DL – there’s a culture of no touchy-feely at the court. So many cases have terrible facts, and it’s like the Justices are vulcans – it’s like they’re 9 Spocks. DL was sitting w/the sketch artists at the oral argument, and they couldn’t figure out who she was to draw her - not only is it several years later and the 14 year old girl is now a young adult, but the case is also so removed from her original story. To be the recipient of that… (the impression the audience got is that it’s no fun)
Is any one else allowed into the Court to hear arguments?
TL – It’s open – you should go in, show up and line up. The Marshalls have a system for letting spectators in. The Supreme Court is one of the most popular tourist attractions – “people are hanging from the chandeliers.”
What do you think the effects would be on the behavior of the Justices if oral arguments were broadcast?
MS – It’s a branch of the gvt, it should be broadcast. That said, the strip-search case would have provided the kind of sound bite that would be used over and over – Breyer (?) saying that when he changed for gym class, kids were putting things in his underwear (he thinks Breyer mis-spoke, and actually meant something not so weird – but that it would be re-broadcast regardless).
TM – There’s is also a security concern – they prefer to be anonymous, it’s their first line of defense.
What do you think the public would learn from having the cases broadcast? Would people watch, or would soundbites affect the public debate?
MS- doesn’t think soundbites would change the debate.
TL – There are enough people who don’t even know we have 3 branches of government, that it couldn’t hurt. During the OJ trial she overheard 2 women on the subway discussing the forensics of that case, which she thought was really cool.
Who do you think might be future appointees? (the question comes from a woman who likes Souter, and is hoping for more quirky Justices)
TM – Souter would be hard to replicate. Souter says “when the term starts it’s like an intellectual lobotomy” – meaning he can’t continue his intellectual pursuits. Souter also says he has the best job in the world, in the worst city in the world. (why does S dislike DC so much?)
DL – listing names of possible women appointees, but too fast to type (you can hear them on the video) – former Dean of the Harvard Law School/new Solicitor General was one. If Souter leaves, there will be a big momentum shift – the right side of the bench is very hot and fiery during arguments, and Souter is the fiery one on the left. So Obama could do well to find someone to catalyze the left side to be fiery.
What’s the difference between Conservative and Liberal?
TL – Doesn’t like pigeonholing people, but right now a Liberal is someone who wants to undo what the Bush Admin did, and a Conservative is someone who does not.
MS – which amendments matter to you? If it’s the 2nd, maybe you’re a Conservative. If you see the church/state split as being important, maybe you’re a Liberal. “this isn’t going anywhere” – about his own comment :]
TM – to say that Liberals are for change doesn’t get you very far – it all depends on what went before.
DL – for the purposes of the Court, one fair pivot is to say the Court conservatives want to let processes work, while there’s a special concern for the liberals that the processes don’t always work: “just because 80% of the states are doing it doesn’t mean it’s constitutional”
MS – but then you get to the point – like with the Voting Rights case that’s coming out - the Liberals want to keep it, and the Conservatives want to say ‘now we’ve got a black president, we obviously don’t need it anymore’.
Something about Originalist vs. Progressive interpretation on the Court
DL – Obama needs to appoint someone on the left who has done some of the ‘heavy lifting’ on that issue, to reconcile some of it.
How has online journalism affected Court coverage?
DL – The Court doesn’t credential online journalists, which is an issue, but it does reflect their conservative nature. But court reporting feels like it’s gotten more loose as a result of online journalism
TM - The web has actually made Court reporting more comprehensive – he works for a literal paper, but he can explore issues more in depth, in the blog aspect of the paper.
MS – SCOTUS Blog and the Legal Times Blog are virtually indispensable to Court commentary these days
DL – And a lot of law professors are blogging really comprehensively about decisions, and journalist are in the strange business of trying to add value, but the profs are starting to do it even better. And then they’re too busy blogging to talk to us in the first 10 minutes after they get the opinions, as they used to.
Will there be streaming audio of oral arguments any time soon?
MS – we don’t expect it.
TM – maybe I’m hopelessly naive, but at some point they can’t avoid it. Other Courts are doing it, those judges may be able to tell the Justices that it’s not causing their courts to crumble
MS – Souter, Thomas, Kennedy, maybe Scalia – most opposed. Souter said ‘over my dead body’.
The woman asking this question says she is not sure that we (the US) have the government we should have, given that we’ve changed over the last 250 years – how do you think the Court should be changed to make it different?
TL – There have been attempts to change the Court – F.Roosevelt tried to add judges, that didn’t go over well. Some states elect judges – she wouldn’t want to see Supreme Court Judges running for office.
MS – But the Court has changed – it sees about half the number of cases it did 20 years ago
DL – the court actually acquitted itself pretty well over the last 8 years, challenging GWB 3 times on executive power. There was also recently a letter sent to Attorney General Holder suggesting changes, including term limits, a way to remove judges – there’s always chatter in the system about change
(they seem to mostly think the Court is okay as is)
TL – She was at Guantanamo Bay as it was being set up, with a bunch of human rights lawyers. They all wondered if the Supreme Court would step in - the Human Rights lawyers thought no, that they would wait until something happened. But unlike in WWII, this Court did not wait.
What cases do you see coming in the near future?
TL – Roe?
DL – ‘Right of conscience’ – declining to perform abortions/dispense birth control or morning after pill based on personal beliefs.
May 28th the torture photos are supposed to be released from the CIA stuff – will that go to the Court?
General thought – no, I think. (does anyone remember better?)
Who pays the advocates?
TL – in the strip search case it was the ACLU
TM – it’s such a prized catch to be able to argue in front of the Supreme Court that lawyers will do it pro-bono – and students will do stuff free, too.
Does Sandra Day O’Connor have regrets over leaving the Court?
MS – has heard her say that she has ‘regrets’ – and that if she’d known her husband would go downhill so quickly, she might not have retired.
Why do the Justices have life-appointments?
DL – the Constitution has them serving ‘for good behavior’, so the constitution would have to be amended to change that. And that’s because the founding fathers wanted to insulate them from having to campaign.
How does the Court chose cases?
TM – When local courts disagree, they often step in. Also, Starr said the courts want ‘new’ stuff (he wished they’d take more business cases), but they’re taking a lot of business cases lately, so that no longer seems true.
A convoluted question from your blogger about the Justices becoming more willing to talk to authors like Toobin….
Do they like to be mysterious, or do they think the county needs to know more about the Court?
DL- they LOVE being mysterious. They think that what they do is really hard and really complicated, and the journalists report on it wrong, and the public doesn’t get it.
TM – and the public wouldn’t be smart enough to get it even if the journalists did report it right.
MS – disagrees – gave some examples (missed them…)
Does the court have the ability/budget to increase their own PR with TV Shows, etc?
TL – that would never happen – they think they’re doing a good job if they’re under the radar.
Follow Question - There was so much control/spin over the Roberts confirmation, with him basically teaching a seminar in law to the public during his confirmation hearing (as TL previously said) – why not keep that going?
TM – Once they’re in the Court, they want to be out of the spotlight – Souter, in ‘91, came to the introductory reception w/the press corps, then left quickly saying “this was really fun, let’s do it again when I retire”.
Thanks to you, 2009’s Arlington Reads program was a great success! 
And, Justice Souter, for whom many of our audience at the Court Journalist Panel Discussion last Sunday professed much fondness, announced this evening that he plans to retire. Check out 
Diane Kresh – Getting the in depth look at Sandra Day O’Connor that we got from The Nine was a surprise – can you talk about that?
Steven from HBW – Why do you think abortion rose as the most important case in the court?
Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, will give an author talk tomorrow evening at 
This was a fantastic panel discussion – the speakers were friendly and funny, and shared a lot of great insight and trivia. Unfortunately, the discussion moved quickly so there were definitely questions and answers that I missed. Hopefully some of the video clips will help to fill in gaps (we didn’t have a tripod, so some of them are a little shaky).
