>> senators dick durbin and chuck grassley introduced a bill that mandates tv coverage of spreerm oral arguments. there was testimony from former senator and judiciary committee member arlen spector. this is two hours. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. i'm pleased to call this hearing of the senate judiciary committee on administrative oversight on courts to order. we have an extremely distinguished panel of witnesses here today. we want to welcome the senator to the committee where he's spent many, many hours. i will introduce the panel after the members make their opening statementing. we'll discuss the proceedings of the supreme court and the durbin-grassley bill that will televise the proceedings. there's been discussions in the past, and although i have supported those i do recognize as a former prosecutor, there's

more details when dealing with the lower court, and there should be discretion in those matters. our focus today will be on the supreme court, and i'd like to begin with the quote from the court itself. in the newspaper decision upholding the public rights to access under the courts first amendment, justice brennan said, "availability of a transcript is no substitute for a public presence at the trial itself. as my experience judge can attest, the cold record is very imperfect reproduction of events that transpire in the courtroom." i couldn't agree more. while justice brennan was talking about attendance in a courtroom, i think his argument is just as persuasive with respect to allowing cameras in the croomg. although the supreme court is open to all americans in theory, the reality is that public access a significantly restricted. there are only a fews available,

some reserved for specific individuals. that means visitors often get three minutes of observation time before they have to give up their seats to the next person in line. those friends of mine that attended when their spouses or colleagues were arguing before the supreme court say it is an amazing experience, and we do not, in any way, want to lessen experience. we would just like to expand experience to other people. more importantly, over 99% of americans do not live in washington, d.c., and thus, their opportunity to visit the court is limited, not only by the number of chairs in the room, but by geography, and it shouldn't be a once in a lifetime experience to be able to see the court in action. the impact of the court's ruling have significant and often immediate consequences for real people. for proof, we don't need to look further than land mark cases like brown v board of

education. in recent years, the supreme court made some strides towards increasing transparency. chief justice roberts enacted a new policymaking audio recordings of oral arguments available on the court's website, although not usually on the same day. before coming to senate, you should know, my time as attorney, the transcripts and audio recordings are not the same as actually watching judges question lawyers live, it's seeing the exchange of ideas and expressions of the participants. that is why i find there to be a compelling need for a regular televised coverage of the supreme court's oral arguments and decisions. the public has a right to see how the court functions and how it reaches its rulings. it's the same argument for televising speeches, press conferences by the president, or for that matter, hearings like this one.

democracy must be open. members of the public, especially those who do not have the time or means to travel to washington, d.c. should be able to see and hear the debate and analysis on the great legal issues of the day or frankly, on any issues that come before the united states supreme court. of course, even if you live across the street from the court, it is not a reasonable proposition to attend on any sort of a regular basis. in reality, public access to the court is very limited, and i think that greater access would be an important tool to increase public understanding of our system of law and demonstrate the judge's integrity and impartiality in engaging with lawyers on both sides. i thought it was ashame only limited americans get to see confirmation hearings in the senate. i recognize there's deeply held concerns about televising court proceedings or making them available on the internet, and in reality, those two mechanisms

are becoming more and more intertwined and indistinguishable. we thought it important to have several witnesses here today to take the opposite side on the bill, and we're very glad that we have such a distinguished panel of people with differing view points. as i mentioned earlier, i think the more difficult concerns to address are at the trial court level in part due to the presence of witnesses, jurors, and criminal defendants. those issues are not present in the united states supreme court. as we will hear from one of our witnesses, the supreme court in iowa has successfully adopted cameras in the courtroom as have other state courts. through the experiences of the state courts two federal circuit courts, we've had a chance to examine in real life the questions that opponents of cameras raised such as potential issues of due process, and we've seen in some cases the concerns have not materialized as feared, and in other cases there have

been ways to address concerns. in terms of due process, it's important to note that the senate legislation championed by senators durbin and grassley, i'm a co-sponsor as well as i know senator cornin and several others, this legislation specifically provides that if a majority of justices believe that any parties due process rights would be violated, the case would not be filmed. i think that's important. for all the reasons i have stated, i believe the court sthowld not be isolated from americans who bear the real consequences of its decisions. i'm confident the justices of our supreme court are capable of ensuring the dignity and decorum of their courtroom, and that the presence of cameras will not interfere with the fair and orderly administration of justice, but rather, it will make it stronger. with that, i'll turn to ranking member sessions for his opening remarks. >> thank you. i thank the chair, and you

always do such a good job at these hearing and do allow a fair and open discussion, and i look forward to the day's hearing. it's good to see senator spector back. he's teaching a course. he's writing the fourth book and practicing some law, and still active in the great issues of our time. i'm -- one of my -- one of the senators i most admired in my time in the senate. this is what i'm thinking about the matter, and don't claim to have it all correct. the power of the court, its role, its legitimacy, its moral authority arises from the fact that it is removed from the hustle and bustle of every day life, its passions, ideologies, its politics. it is a place justice is done under the constitution and laws of the united states. the court seeks to discover the

legal issue in the case. it then decides the legal issue based on objective and long established rules of interpretation and ajude dation. -- adjudication. complicated process at times. it is most certainly not a forum for policy debate, and that is why judges where robes to make clear their objectivity, their neutrality. the moral authority of a court, i believe, arises from its production of an objective judgment. the only thing that is important is the judgment. the order. that decision speaks. it is what is important. it speaks for itself. it speaks for those who rendered it, and their vision, their personality, or lack of it, it's not what a court is about. a court is about a decision, and

we want to see that process in action, but i'm not sure how you see a judgment being dpormed. to the extent that cameras in the courtroom under mind the sense of objectivity. the cause the courts to be perceived more as a policy or a -- policy or political entity, the court's moral authority has, perhaps, slightly been reduced. to the extent that our justices worry about that, i think we should give them deference. whether or not it's constitutionally -- whether or not congress can institutionally direct a court to have cameras or not, it seems to me that we should take very seriously their views about it, and respect it.

it's their domain. they don't tell us how to run our offices here. there's real concerns about the issues before us. i know senator grassley, and you madam chairwoman, you have strong views and advocated them for years. when i became the united states attorney, judge dan thomas, appointed by harry s. truman, gave me advice about the good office i was about to enter. he said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. i'm pretty pleased, really, with the effectiveness of the great court system in america, and i think we should be cautious about making significant changes to the system. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator grassley. >> thank you for holding this very important hearing, and i wanted to speak to the colleagues and the witnesses

that i'm going to have to, at 10:45, go over to the floor for a nominee that's up. over 10 years ago, senator schumer and i introduced the sunshine courtroom act to grant federal judges the authority to allow cameras. since this time, the bill has been brought before the committee many times, and each times it's been scrutinized and reported out of committee in broad bipartisan support. today's hearing focuses on a come companion issue, whether or not the supreme court should allow cameras into the courtroom. just yesterday, senator durbin and i introduced what we call the cameras in the courtroom act of 2011, a bill that requires supreme court to broadcast and televise. it had bipart san support, championed by one of our

witnesses today, my friend, senator spector, who i said privately, i'm glad to see him back in action again. my interest in the expanding the people's access to the supreme court increased 11 years ago when the supreme court decided to hear arguments in the florida recount case in the 2000 presidential elections. we urged the supreme court to open the arguments to live broadcast. in response, the supreme court took the then unprecedented step of releasing an audio recording of their argument shortly after they occurred. it was a sign of progress giving the country the opportunity to experience what so few get to, and that's the supreme court at work. just last year, the supreme court released audio recordings of its proceedings at the end of each week. it's another step in the right direction, and i applaud the

court. it's not enough. i believe the nature of our government and the fundamental principles upon which it was built require even more abraham lincoln says our is government for the people and by the people. it provides power through checks and balances and makes the government accountable to the people. the best way to assure the federal government is accountable to the people is to create transparency, openness, and access. the vast majority of people do not believe that they have adequate access to the supreme court. we had a poll released last year, 62% of the americans believe that they hear too little about the workings of the supreme court. two-thirds of the americans want to know more. what could be better source of the workings of the supreme court than the supreme court itself? in 1947 the supreme court stated, "what transpires in the

courtroom is public property." if it's public property, it belongs to the whole public, not just the 250 people in the gallery. there's no reason why arguments could not be broadcast in an easy, unintrusive, respectful matter to preserve the dignity of the work and grant access to millions of americans wishing to know my. my state of iowa knows something about this. for over 30 years, it's permitted the broadcast of the recording of the appellate courts. i'm pleased to welcome our supreme court chief justice here today. he's come to share with this committee his unique perspective presiding over a court that is broadcast. he's a strong component of transparency and pioneers new ways to give the public greater access to the court system. before we begin, i ask for three things to be included in the record. the first letter i wrote to

chief justice roberts asking for the health care law case to be televisedded. i'd like that to be in the record and second and third thing for the record would be editorial opinions, one written by the second largest newspaper in iowa, "the cedar rapids gazette" stating its support of legislation, and the other, the editorial board of the "washington post" both express belief that supreme court must have its proceedings broadcast, and it's not often that the american's heartland and the capitol agree on much, so that puts 24 perspective into issue. thank you very much. >> thank you. that will be included in the record. i know senator durbin will join us at some point here to have a few words to say about his legislation, but we'll start with the witnesses first, and we

will ask you stand to take the oath. do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before the committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you very much. i'll go through and introduce you and you can give your remarks for five minutes, and senator spector is here with us serving in the chamber for 30 years, the longest serving senator in his state's history. as chairman of the judiciary committee, he was a tireless advocate for televising supreme court proceedings. he didn't have to come back at this point. he has a lot of things going on at senator sessions point the out, but honored you joined us today making your first official return to the senate, so thank you so much for being here, senator. we also will hear from tom

goldstein, founding partner of goldstein and russell. he's argued before the supreme court 24 times, but who is counting? he also teaches supreme court litigation at harvard and stanford law schools and publisher of the scotus blog, a place to look for insight and true rumors and things like that, but you don't put that on your blog. next is chief justice mark kady of the iowa supreme court. he served as an assistant county attorney, district court judge, and chief judge of iowa court of appeals before his appointment to the state supreme court in 1998. next is judge anthony of the third circuit court of appeals previously served as chief judge of that surface, and as a district court judge. prior to his appointment to the

federal bench, he was an assistant district attorney and state representative in pennsylvania. finally, marine mohoney, a graduate of stanford law school, and she works and from ?un to 1993, served as a united states deputy solicitor general. we thank you, all, for joining us, and we'll begin our testimony. >> [inaudible] >> thank you for scheduling the hearing on this very important subject, and i'm pleased to be back in this room where i spent many interesting hours. i believe it's vital that the public really understands what the supreme court does, and in

our electronic age, information comes from television. the supreme court decided in 198 # 0 with a case captioned richmond newspapers versus virginia that the public has a right to know what goes on in court. it applied not only to the print media, but to the electronic media. the supreme court decides all the important cutting issues of the day. court decided who would be president in bush versus gore by one vote. the court decides who wins. abortion rights, death penalty, and every subject in between. not only does the court affect the daily lives of all americans, but it has a tremendous impact upon the separation of powers.

i believe that congress thal authority has been very eroded by what the court has done on the decisions the court decided and the decisions on the cases which they have not decided. the authority of the congress under the commerce klaus was unchallenged for 60 years and then lopez and morrison cut back. chief justice renquist said the case was unconstitutional because of the "method of reasoning." and i often wonder what transformation occurs when the nominees leave this room, walk across the green, and are sworn into the supreme court. the court is very ideologically

driven at the moment, and i think the public needs to understand that, the case of the affordable care act is coming up for supreme court review, and that is a case which touches every american, and it ought to be accessible to the public. the chamber holds only 250 people, and when the american people were polled on the subject, 63% said they felt the supreme court ought to be televised. when the other 37% found out that the people could stay only for three minutes and the chamber was limited, the number rose to 80%. the highest court of great britain and canada is televised. most of the state supreme courts

are televised. when the nominees appear before the committee on con confirmation, they speak about the favorable opinion of television, or at least an open mind. somehow that a reversal when they get to the court. the issues in the affordable care act really ought to be subject to close public scrutiny. i believe the legitimacy of the court itself is at stake. for the people to understand what the court does. there's been no good reasons of why not to televise the supreme court. been an article which appeared

in the national law journal by tony, and he atritts, as he puts it, the defiant stance of the supreme court is their view of their entitled to be characterized as under exception -- exceptionalism. we operate on a different time line of a different chronology and speak a different grammar. that's not true in democracy. senator sessions has it right when he says they consider it their domain. well, it's not. it's the public's domain, and it ought to be accessible to the public. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator. mr. gold seen steen. -- mr. goldstein. >> thank you, madam chair. it's an honor to be here with these panelists all as a potential nominee to the supreme court.

that's not something i'll ever have. my perspective as summon woo argues regularly before the court and also operates a website that will have roughly 10 million visits this year relating to the court where people come to find information about the court. i appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to hold this hearing on an issue that everybody agrees is fantastically important. just to follow-up on the point of the health care case, one can just imagine when the oral arguments in that case and the event issue decision were televised, at least 50 million people would watch that in this country. it's so important the decision to pass that legislation in this body. the obvious serious questions about the statutes constitutionality, but only 100 or 200 people will be able to be in the room for those oral arguments, and we're a visual culture. people watch television. that's how they get a lot of their news.

it would make a difference to have television there. you have my written testimony. i won't repeat it. i just have three points that televised proceedings would be good for the supreme court and not bad for the supreme court. second, you can pass a law constitutionally that forces the courts to do it, but i wouldn't. experience shows that sunshine increases public confidence, it doesn't decrease it. the justices are tremendously serious people doing the public's work. the oral arguments are not scintillating, sometimes not interesting. as someone who argues in front of the court, i can say that, but they are incredibly important. the power to strike down a law passed by the people's representatives is the most serious power that exists under

the institution in my opinion. to understand what's going on and hear the serious questions and hear the answers would make the good work they are doing more than it is now. we are at a time when there's a flagging confidence in our democracy and doing things to increase that confidence would be a good thing. second, can you force them to do it? nobody knows. there's never been a case like this, and it's always quite a challenge to pass a law that would require the supreme court to do something and then invite the supreme court to decide whether you can do it. the justices would end up deciding that case in all likelihood. in my opinion, though, the answer is probably yes. these are public proceedings, not televising the private deliberations. the justices decided to already let the public in. there's a second amendment interest in the public being able to see what's going on. it's an important part of the governmental structure. the very fact that it's part of the deliberations, the

questions, the answers suggest to me that there is a significant interest in having the proceedings be seen. i would, however, if you were going to do it, attach findings to the legislation that explains why it is that you have found that it does not disrupt the court's proceedings, would not present a security risk and the like. the legislation standing alone invites the court to, and the district with the case in the first instance to reach its own judgments about that, 10 i think in hearings like this, you would need to find facts that support the legislation, but thinker, i just wouldn't do this. i happen to agree with senator sessions. we should begin by recognizing it's really easy to criticize the court. it doesn't have a pr operation. it doesn't respond. the justices deserve praise. they are practically the only people in washington trying not to get on television. they are just trying to do their jobs, and they have taken

significant strides. they don't just say they care, but they do things. they publish their opinions. they created a website that's accessible in realtime, publish the transcripts the same day, now publish the audio in the same week, and they are headed in the direction on their own, and the ?afort sessions -- senator sessions pointed out they asked for deference in the process of reaching this conclusion, and like other courts before them, this is always been done, i think, pretty much by the judiciary voluntarily rather than a legislature telling them to do it, and the trajectory is its inevitable that television will be in the supreme court, and i would not provoke the controversy of them requiring them to do it. thank you. >> thank you very much. judge cady. >> madam chairperson, members of the committee. it is my pleasure and my honor

to be with you this morning to tell you about iowa's experience with video court proceedings. the iowa judicial branch has been a leader in media and audio coverage for courts. for more than 30 years, iowa courts allowed audio, photographic, and video coverage of our court proceedings. in 1979 following a thorough study, the iowa supreme court adopted rules to allow for expanded media coverage of court proceedings in both trial and appellate courts. these rules are carefully designed to present disruption of the court hearings, to safeguard the rights of litigants to a fair and impartial trial and appeal, and in summary, iowa rules provide for the media to file first a request to cover a media court

coverage trial. that request is filed with a media coordinator who then submitted it to the court, and litigants are then given a right to october to the coverage, and the media must pool equipment and the rules prohibit certain sensitive segments of the hear. our rules have worked very well. they limit the number of cameras in the courtroom, require the cameras to be stationary so as not to distract from the proceedings, and they ensure that the judge always has control of the process. our judges rarely have problems with the extended media coverage, and they respect the rules and the rights of litigants. the process has worked so well, it's become expected. expanded media coverage of trials, especially high profile trials is a matter of routine.

expanded hearings is less common. i anticipate expanded coverage in one or two arguments a year, but in addition to our procedure for expanded media courts, the iowa supreme court streams all of its oral arguments online and we also archive the videos for later viewing. the court began recording the oral arguments and making them be online in 2006, and we continued that practice today as you know, the strength of our democracy, indeed, any democracy requires a well-informed citizen. this principle holds true for each branch of government. the strength and the effectiveness of our court system depends on the confidence in the courts. as former supreme court justice

thurgood marshall said, we can never forget the only real source of power we as judges can tap is the respect of the people. that republic obviously depends -- that respect obviously depends on how well we do our job of administering justice, but also relates to the public's understanding of our job and the information the public has about how we are doing our job. our experience in iowa has shown that media coverage of our courts tend to boil down at times to just a few seconds of a high video profile trial with the report of the proceedings for a minuterred by a report -- filtered by a reporter. what the public gets is a snipit of the process. although, we'd like to allow more coverage of our court arguments, we believe that the media in iowa provides a great service. their efforted increased

visibility for our courts, and our court procedures, and at the same time, it's become easier for courts to direct them to our proceedings through the modern information technology, and with our online video of core proceedings, more people watch our courts and our experience bears this out. i think i want to leave you with simply one antedote perhaps best described. there's been a strong interest in our online arguments, in our court proceedings, and this has been a tremendous surprise, and it is revealed an opportunity. it's an opportunity for greater public understanding. my observation and conclusion is this -- cameras expose courts to what they do and what they are, a proud institution of justice.

the more the public sees our courts operate, the more they will like and the more they will respect our court system, and this was vividly shown to me a few months ago when the iowa supreme court heard arguments in o community outside our seat of government in des moines. it involved a criminal violation of prevents local mennonite farmers from driving their steel wheeled tractors on iowa roads. the case was whether it violated the first amendment. our arguments in this community drew about 350 people from the area, and after wards at a reception, the father of the young mennonite boy, the subject of the position, patiently waited to shake my hand, and when he did, he looked me in the eye, and he said this, "having seen your court work, it seems like a pretty honest thing."

our courts are an honest thing. cameras can help show it to the public. i would like to briefly pause to watch a short excerpt from one of our court hearings. thank you. >> certainly since this is about cameras in the courtroom, we'll allow the showing. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> does that mean -- >> i think -- [inaudible] >> is that necessary? they challenge the colloquy? >> that's true. >> the alternative he pled guilty to the obvious.

>> you're right. i guess i'm trying to say that we, to go back, to the way that would be is serious -- >> let me go to the aiding ab * and abetting. articulate to me how you think orlando rose -- rodriguez aided and abetted vehicular homicide. >> well, we have to look at the references of the driver, and the crime is in anticipation, and so talk a little bit about sam's behavior. >> let's assume he was wreckless because he drives right out there, the security camera, the case he's had just drives out there without braking, right in the middle of traffic, moves out, not at a slow rate of speed. just assume he's wreckless.

>> thank you. >> well, we want to know what happened in the case, but we'll ask you later. [laughter] next, judge? >> chairman klobuchar, ranking member sessions, and distinguished members of this committee, good morning, and thank you for inviting me here to discuss these proposals for televising the oral arguments of the supreme court. i do not speak for the court, but i am pleased to offer my own perspective which has shaped by my service in the judiciary. at issue is whether televising oral argument will affect the integrity of the judicial process in ways we may not fully exrend or cannot -- comprehend or anticipate, media can affect how an institution functions. you will hear a broad range of views with thoughtful argumenting on both sides. reasonable people disagree about the best court.

let me make three general points that i believe merit consideration. transparency, accessibility, and respect among the branches that allow each to govern its own deliberations. first, transparency. the most important work of the supreme court deciding the difficult cases it hears is transparent. the court explains its decisions in detail. traditionally, this was done through the printed word. now it's done through the electronic word as well. as you know, only the court's opinions are binding precedent on questions of federal law. this process of reasoned deliberation confers legitimacy and permits litigants and the public to evaluate for themselves the soundness of the court's judgment. second, over time, the supreme

court has become more accessible. it has embraced the internet to enhance access to its work. lawyers briefs the court's opinions, transcripts of oral argument, audio recordings of oral argument, they are all available on the court's website free of charge. it's opinions are online as soon as the decision is anowdgessed. third. each of our three branches of government is responsible for its own deliberations and self-governance. the separation of powers underscores the considerable latitude that should be afforded each branch in determines its own internal procedures. deciding whether to televise oral arguments at the supreme court goes to the heart how they deliberate and conducts its

proceedings. those of us outside the court all have individual and institutional interests in the decision, but we do not have the responsibility to decide these difficult cases of national importance. the justices do. they are the ones most familiar with the operation of the court. they understand the dynamics and nuances of supreme court oral argument and how that exchange affects their deliberations. they can best evaluate whether the introduction of cameras might affect the quality and integrity of the dialogue with the attorneys and just as important, the dialogue among the justices. there is a common bond between members of the supreme court and members of congress. each serves as a trustee of the long term interests of an essential institution in our country. the court has proceeded cautiously in evaluating whether

to televise oral argument. they should give pause when seeking to impose a decision on a coordinate branch of government. the congressional mandate that the supreme court televises its proceedings is likely to raise a significant constitutional issue. lawyers and members of congress has expressed this possibility, but there should be no need to test the constitutional separation of powers. there is a compelling reason for caution apart from avoiding a possible constitutional question. the co-equal branches of the federal government long respected each branch's authority and responsibility to govern its own internal affairs and deliberations. this history's deeply rooted in the american political and constitutional tradition.

congress honored this legacy by guarding judicial independence and self-govern nans. these long standing principles of comedy is miewch chew respect for each branch's essential functions council, moderation, and deference. it is not unreasonable to defer to the court on how it conducts its deliberations and speaks to the american people. the court should be afforded the measure of comity in its own govern nans to decide for itself whether, when, and how cameras should be present during its oral arguments. thank you very much, mr. chair. >> thank you very much. ms. mohoney. >> thank you. i thank for giving me the

opportunity to testify today in opposition of the legislation that's now been proposed. i come to the committee having served 30 years as a supreme court advocate, argued 21 cases before the court, and i've had the privilege of working with the court and the judicial conference on the rule making process, so i've come to know them and respect them. a few years ago, justice kennedy testified before congress and expressed the hope that congress would accept the court's judgment on the issue of televised arguments. i'd like to highlight four reasons why congress should respect justice kennedy's request. the first is that there's a serious reason to believe that legislation overturning the supreme court's policy on this issue would be unconstitutional. i agree with tom goldstein that the issue is debatable. it has not been settled, but i think the text of the constitution, the doctrine of separation of powers, and

congress' historical practices all point in the direction that this legislation would be unconstitutional. it would, after all, be an effort to strip the court of its historic authority to decide how to control proceedings in its own chamber. when you look at the text, article three vests the judicial power of the united states in the supreme court, not in congress. congress didn't create the supreme court. the constitution did. from the earliest days of the republic, the supreme court made clear that the judicial power includes the authority to adopt rules necessary to conduct its proceedings and protect the integrity of its decision making processes. although congress has some power to adopt laws that affect the court, it cannot, as the court says, imper permissiblely intrude with something deeply rooted in the law. those concerns are directly

implicated here. it's difficult to describe a statute that strips the court of its deeply rooted power of mere administration especially done in context of disagreement with the court about how it's come down on this issue. history also lends support to the conclusion from 17 89 to the present, congress left the supreme court to its own rules without legislative approve or oversight. second, any benefits to televised proceedings is not great enough to warrant a constitutional con confrontation, and i think tom goldstein agrees with me on the issue. i would say on the benefit side, this is not a one-sided debate. as justice stevens put it, this is a difficult issue. those are his words. it's easy to see educational benefits, but what's the incremental benefits once the

public has full access to the audio and transcripts. justice o'connor, very devoted to public education on the judicial branch and in the supreme court in her view does not advance the knowledge of the public that much. due to the availability of other information and she notes that arguments are technical and complicated. third, judge -- i think television poses genuine risks to the court decision making processes, went we have to look at what a few of the justices have said and told congress. first, in 1996, he told congress that the case against cameras is so strong, so strong, that, quote, "the day you see a camera coming into our courtroom, it is going to roll over my dead body." that bears emphasis that the justice based this view on his own personal experience when he

was sitting as a justice of the new hampshire supreme court, and he said his experience was definitely affected his behavior, that lawyers were acting up for the camera by being more dray dramatic, and he was censoring his own questions. similar concerns shared by a large number of federal appellate judges who participated in a pilot project of televising oral arguments years ago. let me run through what other justices said on the topic about how it affects their decision making process because it's essential that the committee be aware ever this. chief justice roberts said grand standing may be expected to increase. justice kennedy said television alters the way in which we hear the cases, the way in which we talk to counsel, to each other, the way in which we use that precious hour. justice thomas says television would have an effect on the way the cases are argued.

justice schee toe, it changes because the participant's behavior changes when televised. justice breyer sees good reasons for television but counsels caution because there's good reasons against it. justice stevens recognized potential benefits but ultimately is against it because it could negatively affect the arguments and the believer of the justices and lawyers. finally, a would just like to say that i'd like to echo the sentiments that the court is in the best position to assess the impact of lock tronnic media on its proceedings and can be trust of ed to give the issuing careful consideration. as justice kennedy explained, it's the justices, not congress, who have intimate knowledge of the dynamics and needs of the court. when the shoe is on the other foot, the supreme court refused to second guess the senate's procedures. a federal judge impeached came to the court and challenged

those procedures, and the supreme court said that the senate had authority to determine for itself what procedures would govern, and the same should be true here. the matter has not been finally decided. the court, as one of the witnesses explained, has actually altered its policies in cases of high public interest as it did in bush v gore, and it now has requests pending before it, and there's ample time to consider those. in summary, i would just urge the subcommittee to stay its hand. justice kennedy informed congress that we feel very strongly that the matter should be left to the courts, and that view is entitled to respect under our constitutional system of governance. thank you. >> thank you very much. i did want before turning it over to questions is quote the newest an youngest member of the court who said if she favored

the televised proceedings saying she did, but in august, she said if everybody could see it, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it's operating. i got that out an article in the "new york times" by ken starr, the judge ken starr, former solicitor general. that will be in the record as well. i spoke with justice suter about his view, and i think you expressed them well, but i also talked to ken starr who obviously had a different view, and i'm going to turn it over to two of my republican colleagues who have time commitments so i'll have them go first here, but i want to note two things from ken starr's editorial in the new "new york times" where he talked about the people that would like to be able to see this, whether they understand every question or not, ms. mohoney, i'm not sure is relevant because i think they understand a lot of what's going

on. older americans affected by health care decisions would like to see an argument. he talks about women or other groups afghanistaned by important class action cases like the wal-mart discrimination case last term. i think we have to remember that while they may not understand everything single detail, they understand the bulk of what this is about, and i turn this over to my co-chair, senator sessions, and then over to senator lee who i know has a time commitment. >> thank you very much. i do think there's a matter of respect, ms. mohoney. i remember, and chief justice renquist in the impeachment proceedings to ask how the senate should proceed and i vividly remember, he said, well, you're the senate, you decide how to proceed. he was not giving any advice. the idea was to get advice about how the senate should conduct its business, and he said that.

oral argument in the court of appeals is optional to the extent was it traditionally optional in the supreme court, and would changing the rules might alter the amount of oral argument that occurs? >> in most of the courts of appeals flout -- throughout the country, senator, the oral argument is not held in all of the cases, and in the cases where it is held, eight of the circuits put their proceedings on audio usually within the same day, five do not, but some of those are presently considering doing that. if the supreme court were to change its view on that, obviously, it's something that i think the courts of appeals would take into account, but

it's worth noting that since the experiment with -- in 1990 to 1994 in the lower federal courts, only two of the federal courts of appeals have allowed videoing the oral argument. the 9th circuit does it a great deal in their bank cases, on a case-by-case basis on other cases and the circuit does it quite infrequently, doing it four times in four years between 2006 and 2010. >> one of the things that bothers me a little bit, i don't know that it's a defining thing, but in the letter written, there's a quote about older people might want to be watching this. you have, of course, a complete

record of what happens. it is audio transcribed, and the the -- it's tight and produced, but i guess my thought is that we don't want to be in a position in which courts feel they are pressured by one group or another group to render a decision. senator, justice kennedy testified a few years ago here in 2007, "the majority of my court feel very strongly, however, that televising our proceedings would change our collegiate dynamic, and we hope that respect, that separation of powers and checks and balances applied would persuade you to accept our judgment in this regard. we are judged by what we write. we think it would change our

dynamic. we feel it would be unhelpful to us. we have come to the conclusion it would alter the way in which we hear our cases, the way in which we talk to each other." i thought that put forth a pretty good statement of the feeling of the court. i think it's a legitimate feeling produced with integrity. how do you feel the senate should consider overturning that in imposing our view of how the courtroom in the judicial branch should be conducted? >> well, i think the public's right to know the benefit of an informed citizenry vastly outweigh what you quote justice kennedy as talking about, collegial dynamics. justice white boiled it down in

the article that i referred to by tony marrow, which i'd like to have made part of the record, saying that the court's view of not tell -- televising is, quote, "very selfish, i know." i believe if a court were televised, there'd be an understanding and accountability. well, maybe very specific. it's hard to get into specific detail in the brief time allowed. the court came down with a mighty decision in citizens united, which allows unlimited anonymous corporate expendtures. a book recently published by profession larry lesig of the harvard law school called "republic lost," he goes to a critical part of justice kennedy's fifth vote that decide ed the case of a 5-4 decision

and points out that when justice kennedy made a conclusion that unlimited anonymous corporate expenditures would not effect voters decisions in electoral process that he had no absolute factual foundation. the congress under separation of powers has the authority to find the facts, and then there is need only for a rational relationship between what congressment -- congress wants factually and what congress enacted. the court in citizens united disregarded as justice stephens pointed out the record and yanked the rug out from congress where congress had relied upon the austin case in enacting

mccain-feingold. nobody really understands what is happening in these cases, and it is hard to have it conveyed even if there is television, but at least that is an enormous start. so i would not -- i would consider the collegial dynamics that justice kennedy refers to, but i believe it is vastly outweighed by the public interest in transparency as was said sunlight is the best disinfectant. ..

he promised to carry on the battle in my absence. i am precluded under the ethics rules from asking senator durbin what he's done except when i testified before the committee. [laughter] >> before the camera -- >> madam chair i would just add i have a commitment at 12:00, so i have to excuse myself before it's all over. >> thank you. >> very good. we will make sure senator durbin has the opportunity so you can ask him questions. but we are going over to senator lee. >> thank you, madame chair i

appreciate you accommodating my time constraints and i want to thank each of our panelists for being here today to recycle at this issue with a certain internal conflict i'm hoping you can help me resolve and you have helped me results. a conflict which speak stems from the fact that i am an unapologetic open law geek to reva started looking supreme court arguments at age ten. i listen to ohyay.com supreme court as background music and a small local there's absolutely nothing i would love more than to watch the supreme court arguments on television. the be the greatest christmas gift i could imagine receiving. and on the other hand, at the same time, i feel that as a kallur demint branch of government, that the supreme court is entitled to a very significant degree to determine how it operates and this does

lead us to some conflict, but i appreciate the testimony that's been given today, and the incentive that you've provided for us. we have here assembled a very distinguished panel. i've seen maureen mahoney argue before the supreme court and tom goldstein argued for the supreme court. i haven't seen senator specter argued before the court, by the understand that it happened and as a law clerk i saw the judge preside over many appellate arguments, and so it's great to have each of you here. i would like to direct my first question towards ms. mahoney. i would imagine that in the following scenario some would be filled. i imagine if some future point congress decided that although today most of our proceedings are televised, in and putting

proceedings if anyone wants to televise them at some future point congress decided some committee hearings would not be open to television cameras. that is sometimes the case today. some of our committee hearings are close to the public. those are rare but it may be the case one will not close the public will no longer be televised. in that circumstance, suppose further the court got involved and look at it and end up with a decision from the supreme court of the united states saying in effect we examined the constitution and found emanation out of the various free constitutional provisions and concluded from those emanations we can conclude only that it is unconstitutional for the senate not to allow all of its proceeding to be televised other committee or the floor or voting or otherwise. how would that be distinguishable from us telling the supreme court that it must

open up its oral arguments to television. >> it is settled under the constitution that it is the supreme court responsibility to say what fell lot is. to quote the federalist paper number 78 whenever particular subject contravenes it would be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter in this regard. so let's just settle the supreme court gets the last word which is really one of the reasons why i think you would be a mistake for congress to go down this path because of what creates the potential for a constitutional confrontation between the branches. >> regardless who gets the last word as a practical matter as far as -- >> why is a different as a matter of the first amendment? >> for one thing you were doing in elective responsibility york elected by the people, the

constitution was designed to set the matt part and they are not elected of the notion of life tenure to preserve their independence and to insulate them from popular opinion. that's not true with the way the legislative branch is structured. but again going back to the nixon case of impeachment proceedings are public but nonetheless, the nixon judge nixon case of public but nonetheless the court said it was up to congress to decide the senate to decide what procedures you could use for those proceedings and the court wouldn't second-guess that. the willie second-guessing if in fact the constitution required a different conclusion. >> part of life understand you to be saying is regardless what we can do as a matter of raw political power there is a question of what we should do. >> that's certainly the case but there's also a serious question

about whether and do it. a very serious question. >> senator specter how do you respond to this point about the appropriateness of our 20 toward the net branch of government how to operate? >> the congress has the authority to handle the administrative matters legislatively triet for example, the congress decides before ms. on the court six, they decide how many justices there will be on the court and recall the famous the congress has the authority to tell the court when it begins its arguments on the first monday in october. congress has the authority to tell the court what cases it should hear if the congress has the authority to tell them what cases they ought to be televised it's true the court has the last word. i believe that switch should be

of the finality of the court is vital and the independence of the judiciary is vital as the backbone of the rule all at our republic. so the court can come back and say it is a violation of the separation of power. i frankly do not think they would because you have very strong public opinion in favor of having the court televised. the final analysis the court does listen to the public and there are various arguments. for example in the 1980 decision that i referred to, without the equal protection of law when the newspaper people could come in, the court complaints about the clips which are taken out of context that is what you have the quotation on. you may have have been victimized that but that is the free press. and i believe that it would

really benefit this country to have that kind of accountability and that kind of understanding. finally i would add the court has been expanding its authority and a variety of ways. since maryland versus mccaul of, the rational basis for legislation was the test, and the case captured the city in 1997. they came up with a new test of what is congruent and proportion that, and nobody knows what that means. for the americans for disabilities act was in the past decade to cases were decided entirely differently. one geared towards georgia involving the en plant in tennessee on the accessibility and justice scalia said that test was a flabby test as he put it to enable the court to engage a policy decision.

and i think the court does engage in policy decisions and i think the ideological goals of the court of the both ways the war on the court or the rehnquist court, and i think the public needs to know and i think it is a restraining influence of the public and we know the court reflects the changing values and the society the public has to know what the court is doing to be able to express those values. >> i see my time is expired. thank you very much. >> i'm going to ask one quick follow-up before turning over to my colleague and then i will leave my questions to the end. ms. mahoney made the argument that it is not constitutional, this bill, to require the supreme court if many exceptions for due process to televise. and i wonder, while you are not a fan of having the congress to this you would rather have the court do it themselves. how long have you been working on this, senator specter, trying

to get the proceedings televised? how many years? >> 25. >> sing you can see -- give or take five. you can see why hoping this will just happen gets somewhat frustrating. so could you just give the argument for why it is constitutional before i turn it over to my colleagues building on what senator specter spoke about? >> it is my pleasure and thank you for the opportunity to ask ms. mahoney says article 3 of the constitution that the judicial power in the supreme court which is the only court that the constitution requires but as senator specter points out, there are lots of pieces of the administration in the supreme court from things as simple was budgeting to more detailed points like what is that quorum, the jurisdiction is in the like that this body has a lot to say under the constitution, and there is no clear line here.

i do think one thing that would be on the other side of the land would be unconstitutional is congress couldn't pass a law that says the justices are having their private deliberations but we are going to put the camera in because we think sunshine is the best disinfectant. the would be with is classically private part of what the justices are doing. to me the critical point is that these are public proceedings and it seems to me that once the justices meet the threshold decision these are going to be open to the public. after the compelling reason to believe there really would be distorted if how the oral argument works that that is what would be characterized as an undue interference in the operation of the court, and given with extraordinary deference to the justices about their view about how this would affect the proceedings. given the experience other courts it seems to be hard to conclude that this would really

undermine how the court is operating. i wouldn't go there. i don't as you indicated i don't think it is necessary. i think that one compelling thing this body could do with the capacity unanimous resolution urging the court to do it, to give them what the senator pointed to as the great public interest in the televised proceedings but with no promises i think that it ultimately the legislation would be upheld. >> you are saying it was the legislation ordered that the private proceedings be made public a would be a different matter but when you were dealing with something that is already public and when you are trying to do is expand the room to iowa and other places. very good. thank you. senator blumenthal. >> very good. senator durbin. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator specter, it's great to see you again.

you came i think it is unprecedented but it's the first time a witness has asked a senator a question, and i believe because of your many years of great service in the senate you're entitled to that and the question is for reading to pass the bill but we both like so much? holding the hearing and you came to the important development. thank you for being here, senator specter. ms. mahoney, i guess one of the things that troubles me is part of your testimony that suggests that the public just can't understand the complexity of the arguments, the technical aspects that are often brought before the court, and because we cannot quote the problem of educating younger people, and of quote, we shouldn't complicate their lives by exposing them to these complex arguments. i don't think that kind of conclusion as in the spirit of what we call democracy. i think in the spirit of

democracy educating the people and giving them exposure to even the most technical arguments is considered appropriate. when we leave a marquee you really get down to the level people who are chosen for public office are hauled to some standard of accountability. so, tell me, if we allow the public to sit in the supreme court and listen without any proof that they have college degrees were law degrees, and if we allow the press to cover the proceedings without any guarantee that a supreme court justice may make certain that the answer the question is posed would look good in tomorrow's newspaper what's the difference? >> if i could first say, senator, that there was no benefit to the public this is a more complicated more difficult issue it is what are the incremental benefit, and it was justice o'connor who said the

arguments wouldn't enhance the knowledge of the public about much. >> and quoted in your statement. >> i was quoting justice o'connor and i think that's important because i think we all know she cares deeply about these educational issues, and hear the question is what is the incremental benefit. you have to be the incremental benefit a round the cost. if there was no risk to the court's lubber this process i would agree with you. we should televise the proceedings. hardly anybody would probably watch, but so what. and the other thing is that the audio is available. as the senator was saying he could listen to the entire audio and does so. >> you can hear every word of every argument, senator. >> ms. mahoney, the argument to the dhaka point in getting to is this, and we lead a different life, if a traveler and illinois i continue to be amazed and even amused by the number of people who watch c-span light and day. i don't know if these are insomniacs or people who were --

i won't go any further. but whatever their motive may become the model me know who we are and what we are saying and what we've just argued on the floor of the united states senate, i will have friends at home -- i have one in particular, joe kelly, world war ii veteran, who says bernie sanders looked pretty said this week. is their something wrong? they will watch it closely and carefully and draw their own conclusions about the government to have elected. i think it is a healthy thing. >> it can be. c-span sometimes plays the audio and they can run pictures. >> why isn't it healthy that we taken the next step drawing these boundaries and say when it comes to televising or putting these matters on the internet is somehow a lead to far? >> we have to ask what is the impact on the the lubber to process and the supreme court, and the people who know the answer to that tester the justices who ask the questions and listen to the answers and observe the behavior of lawyers and decide how it influences

their own decision making process. if they believe is a collegial body that these benefits are substantial and that the risks to their process are not significant, they will allow television in the courtroom. and that day may come. >> let me correct the record it was joe, not kelly. another was joe flynn who raised the question on sanders and his position. but senator specter, as you listen to this, why are we in treating -- i'm giving you a softball -- why are we in trooping into the proceedings of the court and their own accord on a stone washing the standard that there will be television cameras in the courtroom? >> because it is so important for the public to know how would the government functions, and because the supreme court affects the laws of americans in such great detail. you can't do much more than elect a president by a single vote. and you can't have a more

important this decision and the citizens united case, when it is supposed to get it just doesn't make any sense. it is based upon the assumption without any facts to back it up when you come right down to eight. it is illustrated by the professional lessons. we illustrate by justice and the supreme court does reflect the changing values of the society. >> let me ask you this, senator. you served in the senate before the proceedings on the senate floor were televised, did you not? >> that's correct. >> how would you react now to critics who say we are now more theatrical and our performance is on the floor than before? >> i would side the tremendous number of quorum calls. a senator can get the national

cameron any time he or she wants it. but people do. there are no theatrics their command to the extent there could pediatrics and there might be some, that is vastly outweighed by the benefit of the public understanding having the public see how it's government functions. the supreme court is the most powerful part. when they refused to decide the case like the terrorist surveillance program or the warrantless wiretaps to the congressional authority on the surveillance act, they take tremendous power away from congress and give it to the executive branch people to know that. when they decide that the congress can't legislate to protect women against violence because as the chief justice rehnquist said it is our method

of reasoning it really doesn't burge on insulting. it is. i don't think we are to assert if we say to the supreme court televised. and if you wanted a violation of the separation of power, we acknowledge your authority pierce ducks before, senator. madame chair, i ask my opening statement be placed in the appropriate place in the record. >> it will be placed in the record i want to reiterate what senator durbin just said. you think no one is really watching you sometimes, and i was in a small town in southern minnesota a few years ago and for older women called me aside after i gave a talk and they said you know, we too in an effort a day when you preside at 4 o'clock over the senate. they are just sitting watching to the christening in the chair and they noticed are you in some kind of trouble in the senate?

it just struck me again how regular citizens are turning in and while i know right now the reputation of congress has issues for good reason i don't think that means we shut them out and in fact i see it as a part of the democracy people were able to watch this and come to their own conclusions about issues. with that i turn it over to senator blumenthal. >> thank you, senator klobuchar pittard itunes and every time that he preside as well. you have all of fans out there. [laughter] life and work deutsch as many cases as you have, ms. mahoney, you've done several, and i recognize the dangers to the justice of the supreme court sea and the possibility of grandstanding and the theatrics. but i have to tell you there is no more intimidating and challenging experience than to argue for the united states

supreme court, and bar none i think there are constraints built into the forum, and the pace and the difficulty of questioning by what really preclude -- and i've been there and i have had in mind the sort of lines i might use, but it is impossible given that form to responsibly do it, and i would suggest the great fear in the back of a free advocates mind is the possibility of the rebuke from the court which is very close to happening with any lawyer especially one in the position of trying to use it as a public grandstand so to speak. from one of the nine justices coming and any nine of them can offer that. so i think the fear of that happening is greatly overstated

in the minds of justices perhaps because they have not recently been an advocate before the court if the had been at all. and i come down on the site of permitting televised proceedings obviously depending on how it's done the example we saw here to what is done in the many state courts i think would be a plausible and prudent way to do and obviously the state courts have gone through this debate. we did in connecticut at the trial level where the potential for grandstanding is in the midst of an average year a proceeding where leaving a piece of evidence before the jury is always a real possibility. but all that said, i want to

come to the constitutional question, which i agree is serious. i believe as you do, mr. goldstein, without promises, that it would be upheld because i think it is in the nature of a rule of procedure or a rule of infrastructure so to speak and we said that in mind, let me ask all of you but beginning of ms. mahoney, couldn't the congress, if it wished, move the supreme court into a building five times the size of the present one admitting an audience many times larger than what we have now? in fact, maybe even the center, i don't with the civic center in washington, d.c. is called, but

we have one in connecticut which we will admit that to the people. couldn't we expand the size of a philosophical audience? and isn't that very much in the same nature as this rule would do? >> certainly the supreme court can to build its own building although maybe it could it could get as supreme court historical society to raise money for building for it but certainly congress has the power of the purse, and for that reason does have control over things like where the supreme court will set, and yes i assume this congress could in fact build a new building with a bigger chamber. i don't think that means it and put the court in the coliseum. the court felt that it adversely impacted the integrity of its decision making and that is really what we are talking about here is how do these justices assess the impact on television, on their dillinger of process? and if i could just speak to

this issue of the nature of the power that congress has, certainly they have some. appropriations is one. the power to determine the number of justices. that's because while the supreme court creates the court -- i meanwhile the constitution creates the court, the court is in itself appointing that power of the point is given to the president with the consent of the senate. is it makes sense to say they can come up with a numbers. but when the president tried to enlarge the number of supreme court justices back into court packing days when president roosevelt did that with the senate did was refused to go along. they defeated the legislation, and this committee issued a report that said it was essential that the judiciary be completely independent of those executives and the legislative branches. stevan the power that congress does have a test to use it in a way that doesn't interfere with independent, and it has never

used exercise over responsibility over supreme court rules from 1789 the court has had that authority on its own. i think the textual case for the converse of 40 and syria is not really there. i'm not saying that i am sure this is unconstitutional, but this is a very, very serious question. >> i disagree. i don't know why it is so serious that the courts -- if the court can be moved to reform much, much larger, if the commerce can control in effect the kind of record that is made, can't it also in effect open the proceedings in the public in a different form? >> if it is doing that in a manner which impacts directly on the court's ability to control the proceedings, then there is a

very serious question to read that part of the judicial power, senator. >> of the congress passes fell law that says in the course of these proceedings every justice has to be televised and officially close up, and the litigant or the lawyer for the litigant should be given permission to move around the courtroom and show whatever physical evidence was presented at the trial that would change the nature of the proceeding but simply to leave the proceeding as it is now but open to the larger viewership -- >> that begs the question of who is to decide whether it changes the nature of the proceeding because so far the justices of the supreme court have concluded that they think it would come in and that's why they are not. they are not being arbitrary. they are not saying no to the

vision for no reason to read the have a different assessment than you do, center, and the whole nature of the independence of the judiciary -- >> also believe that the judiciary is underfunded. >> yes they do. >> inadequately performing its present function. that is a much more fundamental -- >> it is a very fundamental issue. >> and whether or not we put cameras in the courtroom for the united states judiciary to be inadequately funded seems to me and much more serious and profound -- >> it is a very serious and profound issue and one that the congress should address and correct. >> why is that not a constitutional issue? >> condra says the delegated authority to establish the budget, and to fund appropriations. so it's authority there is contemptible in basis. what its context will authority to impose rules on import -- >> madam chairman, just one last question. why could the congress, as a

matter of its appropriations power, fund cameras in the united states supreme court with the mandate that they would be installed? >> degette have a provision to fund them, but the issue of whether they can mandate that the be used is the core power of the court to decide how to conduct its own proceedings. that is the difference. >> senator, i agree it is difficult to know where to draw the line that is why we need to let the court draw its own line. >> thank you madam chair. >> thank you very much, senator blumenthal. i want to go to the heartland now with you, justice, and we have a lot of jokes about ongoing and minnesota but i will tell them to you later. but you know some good things come out of iowa and one of them is your experience and knowledge that you bring today to this hearing. what concerns did you here in iowa before the cameras were

introduced into the courtroom? what year was it again there were introduced? >> 1979. >> i was quite a while ago. do you know what the concerns were raised back then? >> i do, and i think there is a tendency to want to brush the issue aside by edison on the constitutional framework, but i really think that this distracts from the real conversation, because this issue does involve public policy, and it seems to be the disagreement seems to be based upon certain assumptions. you think that it's going to cause some bad reaction, and others think that cameras in the courtroom is a healthy response. but our experience in iowa has been that it has dispelled the fear that we have when we address this issue.

we talked about the very same things that we've talked about in this chamber this morning. we talked about the same fears and concerns about how cameras would change the fundamental nature of the decision making. but what we have found out is that we don't even see the cameras. we have always done our business and any fear of any problems have been minimized or eliminated by the fact that the judge or the justices still maintain control of the courtroom allowing cameras into the courtroom does not give up control over the proceedings. >> how about the relationships

with the colleagues because oftentimes that's important, can you get a consensus on a certain decision to get things done? has that affected at all? the cameras? >> it hasn't. we have had cameras in the supreme court proceedings. i can cite no instance, the example where in any way the decision making of the court has been altered by the presence of cameras during an oral argument where i've thought twice about asking the question in the sensitive case to follow closely by the public. >> there were times they had the courtroom that i thought twice about -- >> you know the work that you are doing is being examined more

carefully by more people. >> that's the thing here when we are already doing all the every - friday or a few days after the hearing. it's just really one step away come in yet it would make it so much more accessible for so many people. how about some restrictions. do you have limitations like we have in the durban grassley bill the would say the majority of the justices could decide the due process reasons that would not be filmed? >> we do have restrictions and we were very concerned about those restrictions when we first implemented the cameras in our court room. but it is as if the restrictions are no longer there because we just don't run into any problems anymore. >> do you remember it is instances where you didn't from something or because of some reason that the justices felt it shouldn't be some? >> no puna the only time we have on our supreme court proceedings

the only time we have not filmed something is because we had to shut down our cameras for a period of time because of budget cuts. at no time have we ever fought this is not a case that is appropriate. >> very good. just hearing all this i know that there are some pilot projects going on across the country in the federal district courts. there's maybe when the ninth circuit and other places or maybe just the district courts in the ninth circuit are you aware of those projects and do you know the outcome sar? >> very much. i think the pilot projects are only in the district courts and the 14 district courts around the country and the involve civil trials, not criminal trials, and projects started last summer and will go for three years. they're already have been ten trials that have televised transmitted and will have some good experience in a three-year

period as to how they're functioning. going back to the earlier trials in 1990, there was a very significant number of of what federal appellate judges, one-third who fought that television of the oral arguments actually affected the way the ask questions and the trim their sails on matters of that were quite sensitive, very high publicity cases, and they didn't engage in the way they ordinarily would have had the cameras not been present. in the trial court's there was a lot more problems with assessing the impact of the witnesses and jurors and for that reason the judicial conference declined to adopt the principle that allow the trial courts to televise the

proceedings. of course the court of appeals was given the authority to do it. i think there's an important point that hasn't been mentioned yet, and that is with respect to the state supreme courts that have adopted either televising were putting on audio their proceedings, practically all of these have been done for the roel. they have not been imposed by the state legislature. but most of them have been done by the courts themselves. right now they are 22 state courts that televise the proceedings. another 15 to audio and there are pilot projects in the letter states and that's what we are saying here. this is something that is so essential to the courts function particularly the supreme court then is in a different arena than the state supreme courts and the federal courts of appeal are much more visible.

the possible uses to which the video clips could be used. we don't know. but it's something that the court, that congress ought to consider if we are deciding whether or not to mandate this kind of coverage to an estimate given that we are talking about cameras in the supreme court or we are not having trials go on and i think many people appear maldives to acknowledge that the district court judges have the ability to decide whether or not things should be filmed and the effect it might have on witnesses, but are there any pilot projects going on with their filming appellate courts? which would be the best exit lighting for the supreme court situation? >> there are none right now. it's on the in the district courts. >> i will go back and end with you, justice. it's this notion that it's somehow going to change, and i keep coming back to the fact that these things are audiotaped

anyway now, and that may be with some of these earlier situations they were not audiotaped, but they are audiotaped now some people are going to be able to broadcast things any way and it is just a matter of making by filming them to make them more available to people. then i would also go to the fact of what would cause lifetime appointed judge to not want to ask that question? you could make the argument that the judge that has had a term limit and we elected again somehow that would change, but i'm just trying to get to this mentality of someone who has a lifetime appointment unless they don't want to have protesters they already have protestors, so can you discuss that motivation from your perspective and obviously judge and ms. mahoney has made the point they think it is an impact. >> the impact or the perceived impact on any change certainly

must be considered and so too must the benefits from change. and as i said earlier, we've gone through this transformation and what we have found out is that all that is left in the end is the benefits to the public and we do not encounter problems we, as i said, don't even remember that our cameras are in operation. they are set up an hour courtroom in a way that some intrusive barely noticeable, and as you saw from the small clip i brought along with me this morning you could see that the questioning was tough. was vigorous, it was to the point of the issue and it illustrated what the courts are really about, and that is digging into the bottom of the

issue, and entering the result in a decision that we call justice, and with the cameras do is expose that to the public and its critical in this day and age that the public and be exposed to the way the courts truly operate, not how they are perceived to operate. >> thank you very much. senator sessions? >> well, senator, excellent panel, and i just -- our court decided to have the camera. is that correct? >> correct. you know ms. gold stand and ms. mahoney isn't it true the arguments often don't -- if someone only solve the oral argument hadn't started the brief and studied the record as impression of the nature of the

case because the justice may be focusing on just say a small part of it have you been surprised that the arguments were taken when you prepared diligently for the issues you thought were going to be most important? >> there is no question that for the members of the audience and the public who were admitted as well as anybody that listens to the audiotapes that made available on anybody that would watch on television you can get dropped into the middle of a complicated story. so it may not be the easiest thing to comprehend just like this hearing it may not be the easiest thing to comprehend. the question then is the overall effect and the benefit to the public understanding and also the effect on the court proceedings. >> certainly and especially if you just listen to a short video clip you might get a very wrong impression about what was transpiring. i know justice souter for instance said that the opposition was based on the part

in fact he felt that television could run a very short clip of him that what may be making it seem he was not impartial for instance because it can be aggressive and devil's advocate, that sort of thing and that because of the nature of the tv news they can only pick out a very small excerpt, and justice scalia said it would actually contribute to the message occasion of the public. >> well it seems to me there is a lot of truth to that. in other words if you are on television and you are used to bringing a lawyer here like ms. mahoney and mr. gold steam coming and you ask them about a 40-year-old complex case that they know precisely what the question is about, what in the judge feels obligated to maybe have a prolonged part of the preamble to explain to people

other what he was saying so they wouldn't miss a verse and what he was saying when the lawyers would know immediately what the judge was asked? >> quite possible. quite possible. i think the everything that i find troubling, senator, is the possible use to which film clips might be put in the subsequent cases. that is after the oral argument is shown let's say on c-span there may be excerpts or snippets that may be used for other purposes and i don't know how we can anticipate whether there would happen or not or what form it would take. but i think it is something that the supreme court has fought about -- fought about. and we have heard from ms. mahoney some of the statements and they are quite concerned whether it will affect the way they conduct oral arguments, the kind of questions

they ask. a death penalty case for example where there were serious constitutional issues and the family of the victim happens to be in the room judges i think are going to think very carefully about how they propose difficult constitutional issues and there's other instances in the case as well. so i think it's not quite right to say there would be no impact on the conduct of the argument before the supreme court. >> i am remembering when i first started prosecuting the cases when the jury returned the verdict would tell them not to to discuss the verdict and then the supreme court i think said well free-speech. you can't tell them not to discuss the verdict. why don't abuse it to me some state of the authority decision

is a little bit eroded when one said i thought it was a skunk but there wasn't enough proof and this one says this and that and it becomes a -- i think to some extent you should judge a court not to summit them but totally judge record on the merit of the opinion, is in that we should judge the court on and evaluate basically the power and the authority of the opinion is rendered? >> of the oral arguments often give very little insight into how that opinion would come out and sometimes judges change their mind from the oral argument to the time they are writing an opinion. >> of course each of us who has served on an appellate court has had oral arguments affect the

way that we think and once we get into the meat of the case and start writing the opinion find out you may come out the other way. the real work is done in preparing for the oral argument, reading the briefs from reading the opinions, studying the law, the oral argument is helpful. it is a slice sometimes you play the devil's advocate, sometimes you ask a very provocative questions but it is the written opinion that counts, and the public will judge in the court particularly the supreme court on the soundness of its opinions with thistransparent. estimate may be that principle will be less so if they like one judge and not that of another one of the personality of one judge. i would say madame chair, the court seeks in an ideal world

always to determine whether law based on the facts to determine fall and is applied to the facts should be to the extent to which it becomes even a little more political ideological, religious based or whatever comes up in the course of these arguments and the cauldron of emotions brought there in the world around the courthouse to the extent of which it is in any way moved from that ideal i think is not healthy, so it seemed to me in the courts a little uneasy, more than a little uneasy that this would move them away from the law. to that extent, i would be prepared to show differences -- difference. i would note the legislation has now drafted would mandate the cameras and operating the

cameras in the courtroom unless every case the court votes to the contrary. thank you for an excellent hearing and an excellent panel. >> it's not quite over. center blumenthal has a question. i was trying to picture though as i was listening to ruth bader ginsberg turning it to judge judy. laughter trilled don't think it is going to change her demeanor as she is on tv. that is my view but i will turn over to senator blumenthal for a few more questions and then wrap it up. >> thank you madam chair and also for having this hearing which i agree has been excellent, due to the excellent witnesses that we have and i have just a couple of questions. i guess for mr. col d'aspin and ms. mahoney. i wonder if in light of the increased openness that we have

in the court to its credit a was a law clerk in the 1974-75 term for justice blackmun and there were no recordings, there were no tapes available. even we as law clerks had to attend physically the arguments that he wanted to hear what the advocacy was, so i wonder whether the accessibility, which as you said ms. mahoney for anyone who really wants to hear what is going on it's available. whether that has changed the nature of the argument i sense not but you've been doing and more than i have. >> i don't think it's changed the way that i argue cases but i can't speak to what the justices might think.

>> i've never heard anyone articulate the because it is being taped and now the tape is available with the end of the week that the oral arguments have been differently, it is a different kettle of fish of course for all the reasons that it invites more people to witness the proceedings so it could have an effect. i don't see it happening for the reasons he gave as someone who did have considerable oral argument experience and the great fear of being slapped down for grandstanding. it's a really serious one and nobody wants to lose their case or embarrass themselves. to the extent it changed how the justices kong port's themselves, well, they are comporting themselves in front of the american public and that, i think, is an acceptable cost to the extent it is a cost. i would make one other point and that is we talked about this as if it is only oral arguments and changing how the oral argument is conducted. that's not quite right.

the court has other public proceedings. it announces decisions. and nobody would, i think, say that there is an interaction between lawyers that would change, yet there are those who are not televised. and the court also has proceedings where, for the example, a justice will be invested into the court and those are not televised either and again not something you would say ordinarily could somehow be affected by televising it indeed it is a part of the space process. that would be affected by the legislation as well. >> tariffs begin your view and any of the other panelists, could the court decide that it felt that the intrusive nature of the writing press given that the transmission of those ridings now was so intrusive

that it would disbar all reporting? >> the answer to that question is no. the court's decisions about the public access make it fairly clear that there is a vast amount of access that is a different historical tradition that involves. i will say the court does have certain restrictions even with respect to the press and who can be a member of the press and how it is the press functions inside of the building trying i think as with the website and as with the release of the audio to get as much public access as they can. but that is an example where there would be the first amendment prohibition to what they are doing here. i don't think anybody has made the decision that there is there to have the court because it is in the nature of the time, place and manner.

>> it's more -- because of its greater relative intrusion on the proceedings that requires some physical the installation it's just -- it's been a wine growing difficulty and the fact that there are other avenues of receiving the information through the press that satisfies the first amendment. the question of whether you have the legislative power to nonetheless access law, and in your own view say there's a first amendment value here. spec another thing is to be a federal case not everything has to be a constitutional violation that we can say it's really good for the american people to see how the government operates. that is the first amendment is about and so that motivates us to pass legislation like this. that would be a different question. >> thank you madam share. >> thank you, senator sessions? >> thank you. it's a good panel. these are important issues. i don't think it is the most important in the world but it is

a tough issue to know precisely what the right thing is. thank you for participating. >> thank you. i think that you saw from all of the senators that ended today with senator woman fall, senator whitehouse, senator durbin, senator lee, senator grassley, senator sessions and myself that there is a big interest in this, and i am one to believe mr. goodstein pointed out this would be best if the supreme court made the decision. hopefully they are watching c-span and they see all of us here in the arguments instead of having it legislative but one of the reasons that we are focused as senator specter point about it has been 25 years and waiting. the idea is likely to senator sessions talked about the importance of the dignity of the court and the majesty of the court which i think we all can understand. on the other hand, we want other people to be able to see that besides the 250 people that are

crammed into a room to watch the people that justice katie's home state should be able to tune in and watch this and watch important issues of the data i believe while senator sessions pointed out we have a lot of things going on. a lot of those things and that in the supreme court in one way or another, and i think that is what this is about giving it understanding that we want to respect the decision making process not given to the private decision making process and the debates going back and forth in how harmful there would be but in fact just the public portion of it, and the pronouncement of the decisions as well as mr. goldstein pointed out to read as we wanted to think all of you. this has been a highly interesting hearing and i hope that we will be able to help people watch it as it is recorded. they will be able to see the arguments. i want to thank senator specter who had to go back to his home state as well as mr. goodstein.

thank you especially judge tv for being willing to talk about your own personal experience and can't get beyond the comfort level of where you get to ask the questions and we get to ask the questions instead. we kind of like that. and then also think you ms. mahony for the experience you bring to this. also i should mention being a clerk for judge rehnquist, justice rehnquist said the extent you bring to this as well. so thank you everyone. we will keep the record open. >> in opposition to the legislation. >> jerry goodbye will also offer these statements of chairman lee he supporting the cameras in the courtroom. so i want to thank all of you for being here. we will keep the record open for one week for people to submit further statements. so thank you very much, and we look forward to debating these issues in the month to come.

the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> i think there was positive discussion here. i especially thought iowa,

iowa judges -- [inaudible] the iowa judges, the iowa judge, justices view on this was most interesting to me because they had the most recent experience. they're in a state just like minnesota, people tend to be very focused on democracy. if you don't believe me, look at the caucuses coming up in iowa. they're very focused how things work and what is going on. i think that was interesting as well as the constitutional debate about the actual legislation. i think would be a mistake just to focus on that because the general hearing was was about should we have these cameras or not. from that standpoint i think it came out pretty positive. >> do you have any indication that bill will be passed in time? [inaudible] >> you know, one can only try. i would, i think it would be difficult. i don't know were the house

is on it but it is surprising sometimes how things can happen. one idea was a resolution as well. that would be not be mandated but it would send a clear indication to the court that congress was serious bit and could be a step away from doing something more mandatory. >> -- [inaudible] >> something you would consider but right now our focus is getting the actual bill through. i would guess we could get it through the committee. i haven't looked where the historic votes were on it but i would think we can. then it gets headed to the floor and anything can happen. >> i'm sorry. >> these statements that some of the senators put out, specific to the health care have asked the court to make a one-time sort of exception for that. is that something you think is realistic? >> that would be great as an experiment. we're very much interested in doing this for the long haul and not just for one case. >> do you know, senator specter said it came up in

the committee so many times and not come for a floor vote? >> let's go back and check. i don't know that answer. >> seems like -- >> did it ever come up for a floor vote, do you know? >> [inaudible]. >> i'm asking you to go back 25 years. >> i don't think so. >> then we'll get all your names and let you know. >> all right? >> what if oral arguments are televised or not what do you think, which is the way it might turn out if you can't -- >> then, obviously there will be great use made of the audiotape. it will be one of those things. hopefully we get it sooner than three days later. but they will their with audiotape on it. it seems contrived when you could actually videotape it. people on both sides of the issue would like to see it. >> do you think people will feel that the decision is less legitimate if it is not televised? >> i don't really want to

get into that. i don't necessarily think that's true. what you do think is true people have a right to see when major decisions in public forums are being made, how that affects them. and remember, this, we've come a long way when this country was set up in terms of our ability to access public meetings and public forums and that's why i believe the court needs to be transformed as well. we are not talking about going into their private negotiations. you want the justices to have the right to go back and forth and form consensus and make, you know, people change their opinion. that is what they learn, something new. you don't want the constraint on that. this is very different. this is something we already decided is public but we're just only going to allow 250 people it will be able to have the resources and the ability to get themselves into that room and to travel from somewhere and have the money to do it whereas the rest of the public has to wait three days to see an ought yo tape. that just doesn't seem right. >> thanks, guys. appreciate it. >> thank you so much. thank you. you want to get their names?

[inaudible conversations] >> this a few moment as forum on the result of russia's recent parliamentary elections. in a little less than an hour and a half, more from the inquiry into phone-hacking and the brit tish media including testimony of executives of the paper, "news of the world", ignored phone and e-mail hacking at the weekly tabloid. after that we'll reair the hearing on televising the supreme court. several live events to tell you about tomorrow here on c-span2. the republican jewish coalition presidential candidate forum will hear from rick santorum, john hunts manned and mitt romney at 9:00 a.m. eastern. on our companion network, c-span3. senate homeland security kmat tease hold the first joint hearing to look at threats to military communities at 9:30.

c-span3 at 2:00 p.m. eastern we'll return to the republican jewish coalition forum to hear from newt gingrich, governor rick perry and representative michele bachmann. >> part of the point of the book is to change the way we think about change and to make us much more aware than i think we are instinctively of the potential suddenness of disintegration or collapse. to make us realize what happens to the soviet union, what happens to financial system in 2007-2008, what is currently happening to the european union is the kind of thing that can happen to any complex a adaptive system. it can suddenly malfunction.

>> sunday's russian parliamentary elections gave the party of former president putin a narrower than expected victory. opposition parties and election observers say there was fraud and u.s. secretary of state clinton has called for an investigation. nexts the heritage foundation discussion of the election and how the results may affect u.s.-russia relations. this is a little less than an hour and a half half. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us here at the heritage foundation and in our douglas and sara allison

auditorium. we welcome who join us on the heritage.org website on all these occasions. we would ask if you are so kind here in the room to make sure cell phones are turned off as we prepare to begin. it would be most appreciated. we will post the program within 24 hours on our website for everyone's future reference as well. our internet viewers are always welcome to send questions and comments. e-mail us at speaker@heritage.org. we will pass them onto the panelists even the after the event if necessary. hosting our discussion this afternoon. dr. ariel cohen. he is the senior fellow of the cohen institute of inches international studies. he earned his ph.d at tufts university. he works on the area of economic development and geopolitical challenges from russia and the former soviet republicans to the -- republicans to the global war on terror. a eminer about coins till on

foreign relations international institute of strategic studies in london ad the association for study of nationalitis. ariel, i will turn the program over to you, thank you. >> i will stay here at the table. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very for coming and thanks for everybody watching us on the internet. first when we were planning this event, as a part of our series of events on russia and reset, we did not know what is going to happen after the duma elections. to tell you the truth i was in russia for the voldi club meeting and we met with leaders of the political parties. we met with putin and et cetera, and we were asked to make a prognosis and a prediction. and i predicted incorrectly that the united russia is going to get 60%, 55 to 60%

of the vote. that just russia will be wiped out, not because they will be wiped out by the voter because the electoral commission will not allow them to be in the duma. all that proved to be wrong. but we have terrific panel today here who will be able to shed the light at what happened. what the background is and what the implications are. not just for russia but also for the u.s.-russian relations. i think it is always important to examine what the relationship between our country, two countries is and where it's going. we have, as i said, outstanding experts and i will present them in the order they will appear and then i'll have a few concluding remarks. vladmir kara murders is a is

member of the russian opposition movement. he served as campaign chairman for the presidential candidate, the famous dissident and advisor to the opposition leader. he was arrested today with a number of other leaders and we'll mention that. vladimir is author of reform or revolution, the quest for responsible government in the first russian state duma, contributor to russia's choices of duma elections and after and russian liberalism, ideas and people. he is the bureau chief for rtvi. he writes extensively for u.s. and russian media and holds an ma in history from cambridge university. to his left, dr. katrina lantos swett. and i'm honored that your

mother is here too. dr. swett established the lantos foundation for human rights and justice in 2008. she serves as president and chief executive officer and teaches human rights and american foreign policy at tufts university, my alma mater. katrina also taught at the university of southern denmark, director of graduate program of public policy in new england college. she has extensive academic background as also has a distinguished career in new hampshire politics as adviser, commentator and strategist. katrina and her husband, richard swett during his tenure representing new hampshire in u.s. congress and later when he served as united states ambassador in denmark worked on human rights issues and is also, was also key adviser to her father, the late congressman, tom lantos, someone's

expertise we sorely miss especially as such issues as human rights and such issues as russia. and when i testified with katrina there was more than one voice in congress saying when are we going to have you in congress? last but not least, my good friend david satter. david is a former moscow correspondent and a prorisk writer, born in chicago. graduated university of chicago and oxford where he was a rhodes scholar. worked for "the chicago tribune", london financial times, "wall street journal", and written a number about books. the latest one i'm reviewing right now and it is very, very depressing reading. it is called, ", it was a long time ago and never happened anyway". it is about the memory of stalin's repressions and we hoped to have your book

reviewed and, an event for your book at sase very soon. with that let's go to vladimir and katrina and david. then i have a few words after that. >> we can speak here? >> we speak here, maybe 10 to 12 minutes. >> the mics are working? thank you very much. ariel, thank you all for coming and thanks to heritage for hosting this porn eimportant event at very important time. just before the elections a very quick update as ariel already mentioned several opposition leaders were arrested in moscow today, about an hour and a half ago. including boris, the leader of the popular freedom party, the chairman of yabika, only pro-democracy party allowed on the ballot last sunday. the head of the left wing snags alist russia group. as well as many journalists activists, two prominent

activists. famous anti-russian campaign were sentenced two weeks, 15 days in jail by a moscow court today. this all of course began last night when 10,000 people gathered in central moscow to protest against the rigged election results. this was the largest pro-democracy gathering in the rush shn capital over a decade. arrests began last night. 200 people were arrested last night and 300 people were arrested today. interior ministry is bringing in the elite division to quote, unquote, keep order in the russian capitol. we're witnessing how they're keeping order right now. back to the original topic of the election. apart from silencing his opponents and enriching his personal friends the one thing vladmir putin was really good at was fixing elections. in fact he had a perfect track record in this from march 2000. but this track record was

broken last sunday. to be absolutely clear this election was not democratic, it was not free, it was not fair. to begin with several opposition parties were not allowed on the ballot in the first place. there were numerous violations during the both the campaign and vote count. i will talk a little about them in a few minutes. even in all these conditions and even according to their own official data, official figures, the party was just weeks ago openly boasted remaining 2/3 supermajority in the duma. could not muster 50% of the vote. latest official results is 49.3. that is 100% of protocols officially tallied. the, what happened on sunday was happening today and what happened yesterday, these last few days, this is a turning point for the putin regime in my view. it's a turning point not because the new duma will be, will rebel against the kremlin. it will likely be as just as

obedient as the previous one was. not because the quote, unquote opposition puppet party that is the three parties that got into the duma apart from united russia will pose a challenge. they will most likely vote as they're told by the kremlin especially on all the important matters. it is a turning point because, this myth of invincibility, political invincibility that vladmir putin enjoyed for the last 10 to 12 years has been shattered on december the 4th. as i said even according to their own rigged results and official figures they had to admit that the majority of russian voters voted against them. there is no question about it. they don't vote for the people, the officially sanctioned puppet alternative parties. they voted against vladmir putin. that is the message from sunday. and what this will mean, very practically, that those people who are intimidated and pressured and threatened especially in the regions the voters were intimidated it will be more difficult to

intimidate them. also the careerists go back to the regime for personal gain and personal advancement will begin weighing their options because it seems the russian political pendulum stayed frozen the past 12 years is beginning to move in a new direction. the now the action it telephone, the vote it telephone -- itself did not represent any kind of improvement. the most apt description provided by head of overseer admission. the she said quote these elections with were a game only some players allowed in the pitch and favor is tilted in one. players, end of quote. nine opposition parties ranging from the center right popular freedom party to the left wing united labor front and others in between were banned from taking part in the election by the ministry of justice's refusal to register them. the television message was firmly and fully controlled by the regime. there was ample administrative interference during the campaign.

we saw state and regional officials openly coercing voters especially public sector employees, state employees to back the ruling party. we saw officials openly linking future budget allocations to territory the tally united russia will get on voting day. we saw mass manipulation as and violations on the voting day itself. the vote count in 30% of the cases on 30% of the polling places it observed as quote, bad or very bad. they documented cases of ballot-stuffing, multiple voting, so-called karo sells when people go around several polling stations approach the member of the electoral commission who is in the deal with them and vote numerous times. there were cases of, many cases of unlawful eviction of observers and journalists and even candidates from the polling places. and there were ample cases of rewriting and rig of the official protocols once the vote has been completed. and in terms of monitors

there was in the last few days and last week before the election, russia's sole independent monitoring election monitor came under sustained attack from the authorities. it was, it was an investigated. it was fined. its director was detained at airport. her laptop was confiscated. 10% of monitors were denied access to the polling places on various pretexts. on voting day itself some of the most popular independent media web sites in russia, including the website of the radio station were reporting these violations and cases of fraud were downed by a cyber attacks and remained down for the entire day of voting. and then of course the leader of the north caulk can sasses republicans proved to be faithful vote providers for the kremlin. they registered 92% in, 99 1/2% in chechnya. this has been the case in

several voting rounds. so there's good reason to believe the actual result for united russia was much lower than the 49% officially announced. in fact there was on exit poll across 24 russia regions a moscow basins statute and these are thing figures they gave 38ers for united russia. 48% for comist ins. 15% for ldpi and 5% for the only prodemocracy party that contested the election. this last figure was significant. because if it crossed 5% threshold would have meant not only voice in parliament but unimpeded access to all the regional elections and the country and presidential elections. parties in the duma even represented by one person do not have collect signatures that is the most popular way prevent opposition from contesting election, quote, unquote fraught lent signatures. its vote was pretty obviously stole inch

especially in moscow war vote tally reduced from 18 to 20% recorded by independent on searchers where they were present to eight and a half, 9% in the official protocol and in moscow and 4% nationally. so the main message from sunday was that even according to the figures, doctored official figures majority of russian voters have voted against vladmir putin. we're seeing more and more that people are prepared to express their discontent and frustration not just at tainted polls but increasingly on the streets. and we've seen over the course of 2010 a wave of anti-government protests especially in vladivostok and what we're witnessing in front of our eyes yesterday today and in moscow is further proof of that. the region game in my view is facing or will face in the very future a very serious dilemma in the face of this discontent and rising anger. they will either have to take steps to reform and

liberalize the political system which means that almost certainly they will be voted out at some point. or they will try to cling on, hang on to their power by means of further repression. in which case they're likely to repeat the fate of hosni mubarak. the choice is theirs. either way it seems that this, these past two or three days are the beginning of the end for vladmir putin regime. in conclusion i like to say a couple words on the u.s.-russia angle in this. we've seen already the u.s. state department express its concern over the fraud and unfairness of the vote including by the secretary of state in bonn and today. this is very good opportunity for the u.s. and u.s. government to demonstrate its commitment to the values of rules of law and human rights and democracy not just in words but in practice. and to that end there's a very important bill currently pending before the united states senate. it's call the rule of law accountability act. bill s-1039.

a truly bipartisan bill. 26 cosponsors from conservative republicans to liberal democrats this bill proposes a brilliant, simple, very effective idea. the idea that human rights violators have names, specific, concrete names and this bill proposes to introduce targeted personal visa sanctions, that is to say, a banning entry into the united states and asset on, freeze on financial assets into the united states for those who violate internationally protected and internationally protected rights and freedoms of russian citizens including a section, including the right to democratic elections. this is aimed at people who, officials and people close to the regime who want to rule like in burma or zimbabwe but want to take sking vacations in austria and shopping trips to new york city and want to keep their money and children in the west. time for some personal responsibility and this, in a view, this is not just my

view. there was a open letter by several leading opposition and cultural figures in russia a couple months ago to the u.s. senate addressed to majority leader harry reid and foreign relations chairman john kerry urging to pass the bill as soon as responsible. time for personal responsibility for violators like the chief political handler of the current political regime or the chief certifier of fraudulent political results this will make them thing twice there is a precedent in u.s. law. belarus democracy act passed seven years ago and signed seven years ago which provides for entry ban for the u.s. for belarus human violators and in cases of election frauds. in the case of belarus largely symbolic because of the length of the time the regime has been international isolation. the belarus officials, regime officials don't have as many personal interests

in the west. the officials in the current russian regime certainly do. in that case it would not be symbolic. it would have some practical consequences. stating the obvious it is up to the russian opposition to bring democracy back to russia. it is doing all it can right now. if the west wants to show it is serious about upholding values of rule of law and human rights and democracy, now is very good time to show it. >> thank you. this was very pointed. and, let's approach it from different perspective. dr. lantos. >> first of all, let me say i'm really very honored to be here as part of this panel and i'm surrounded by colleagues, all of whom have greater personal experience with the issues that are unfolding in russia than i do and significantly more expertise and i somewhat suspect perhaps my invitation here is a product of the fact that i may be the only democrat here

and -- >> we're not holding it against you. >> i'm so grateful for that. >> i'm a russian democrat. >> russia. that counts. that gives me a little sense of solidarity if i say say so. for somebody who has been involved politically in washington for many years this is actually the first time i've had the pleasure of being here at the heritage foundation, so i feel a little bit like, you know, forbidden fruit being here but it is wonderful. it is a great honor. it is my great pleasure to be here. you know, sometimes through small incidents and even small moments that important truths are revealed and much was made a few weeks ago of the famous booing incident that took place following a marshal arts match when -- putin on the stage. some thought maybe we're making too much of this. maybe what happens and reaction after bunch potentially inebriated and certainly excited fans at a

martial arts match doesn't reveal that much. maybe in the aftermath of sunday's election, we know that in fact that was revelatory moments that masks a big truth. whatever happened in the lick shuns on sunday, one thing is clear. vladmir putin has lost to a large degree his legitimacy and perhaps even his inevitability. considering everything that preceded these elections the results are truly, aable and vladmir and i, ariel, you said you got it wrong a few weeks ago and we were just beginning to talk in the elevator on the way up here how surprised we all were because i think any of us who were thinking about being here with you today and beginning to prepare our thoughts were somewhat stunned when the actual results began to come in. . .

critics of the kremlin and the names of course more than among hundred 50 selena journalists come to mind. despite enormous electoral fraud -- and we aren't simply talking about discussion of the ballot boxes or the voting that vladimir referred to, but of the whole setting of the stage that tilted playing fields but was quoted by vladimir come and again, the deployment of the overwhelming bulk of the media outlets as the election campaign

on the united russia, the harassment and intimidation of the watchdog organizations and now of course the ultimate adult box. despite the careful cultivation of certainly from the western perspective the almost comically narcissistic personality that has been built up around the new macho beer chested czar, despite all of this disturbing and authoritarian manipulation or perhaps because of it. when the russian people themselves had the chance to give their verdict on putin's party, their answer was unmistakable yes. the verdict is all the more remarkable because in many ways, the russian economy right now is one of the healthier ones in that region of the world. certainly there are challenges. certainly there are very big

issues of stagnation and many things we can talk about there. but fueled by the considerable resources in the energy economy. the russian economy has been quite strong, and the russian government has spent freely in recent years on raising pensions and building infrastructure schools and roads and hospitals. as we find ourselves asking the question how do we explain this humiliating public rebuke of a united russia and its six import vladimir putin? there's probably a lot of explanations. we can talk about the economic unease about the future which plays a role in any country, it played a role in the presidential election unfolding here in the united states. we can talk of course of a growing disgust and though rapid discuss the character voices virtually every aspect of the russian government and more

broadly russian society. he's referred to this as vertical corruption, and described united russia as the party of swindlers. this is now a widely held view coming and it was really kind of interesting actually to read some of the articles where man on the street, one man on the street interviews were quoting ordinary russians and they said precisely those words "i found that fascinating." i think there is growing dismay and deepening concern among regular russians about what medvedev himself called the legal russia and some of the poster child examples of that and, you know, the profound lack of will saladdin in transparency is without a doubt. but i believe that there may be an even deeper meaning and message being sent by b.c. elections. perhaps they represent a

rejection of the historic slander against the russian people namely that they don't really embrace or desire democracy. when all is said and done at some level they prefer to have a strong start to rule them and to protect them. all the obstacles and all the reasons and all the corruption and the intimidation may say to the world this is a false and if that is what they are telling us then i think that we would do well. i come at this issue from the perspective of somebody involved in the issue of human rights and justice and democracy. and i want to say just a word about the act which was referred to previously. we don't have to look too far back in our own legislative history as americans to realize

often when those who are fighting for greater democracy and greater human rights and now russia and other parts of the world tried to advance a legal fee hickel, a legislative vehicle to take our stand to planned and northland, to put our marked down we always hear the pushback we can do it through other means. and in the act we've had the current administration, which i have great praise for and some regard but i have some criticisms saying we are going to do this administratively. we are going to do this through other means. we don't need to sort of russell others of the partners as a matter of legislative enactment passing along all that is a red flag to them. but i hope and encourage our leaders in congress not to listen to that siren song. i am reminded of the relatively recent examples where we had administration's making just that argument.

one of course is the jackson amendment. still technically on the books and mikey ellen view and one of the messages that i had been taking and will be taken to the leaders in congress and urging their support for this act is we should not and must of repeal without a commitment to pass survey. there should be a deal. he no longer had the real world pertinence that it did in the past that he does, so i think we need to approach that. the other example of course that i remember is the south african sanctions bill and i remember the ronald reagan administration saying this will harm the very people we're trying to help and there are other ways to go about this. publicly sanctioning other countries is never a good idea diplomatically. and in fact, reagan vetoed that piece of legislation ending one of the few rebukes and it's a difficult thing to accomplish

legislatively that it was overridden, and we saw the result of that and so i'm so grateful you brought that piece of legislation up. i think it is a very concrete deliverable. it's something that america can do now that the u.s. congress can do now to say we do not accept the status quo and we do not accept the notion that we have to fast peddle our concerns about human rights and about justice and democracy and rule of law order to pursue other areas of interest. i think the critical issue was lead before last very succinctly and that is what they're putin or russia now because clearly this is a turning point. there are always tuberose open and they diverge in the woods as we like to see in a hampshire and one road is more or less traveled depending on which one you choose. i think that the lessons of the

arab spurring for good and affordable are in these very instructive years. but as i look at russia's response to example what has been going on in syria and the steadfast refusal to condemn the shocking and appalling brutality of the syrian regime in cracking down on the pro-democracy protestors i don't see the hopeful outlook for the likely response of the kremlin and putin. i hope i'm wrong. i want to be wrong. this is an instance we want to be wrong but it remains to be seen and i know the we will have more opportunity to discuss this further as the dialogue begins. thank you. >> thank you very much. now david, please. >> when i got the news about the election results and

particularly about the demonstrations in moscow over the corrupt electoral process, i was reminded of the two incidences' one in real life and one in literature. the one from real life was of course the moment when nikolai addressing the huge crowd was suddenly booed, and the booing escalated. he was taken completely of act. newsreels of that incident which took place in the late 80's showed him completely discomfort and by the fact that his previously passive subjects were now booing him and there was not an insignificant event. it was followed by a full-scale revolt of the population and eventually his execution.

so i am reminded also of the incident in the war and peace described in the moment it became clear that the russians having long retreat before the french army were going to resist something in the atmosphere had changed and was palpable and was perceived by everyone. i think what we have now is what we could call the moment in russia. russia was a country in which there were very few demonstrations of protests for a very long time and those demonstrations which did take place oftentimes organized around the very valid but secondary issue of the freedom of assembly attracted relatively few people. now we have mass demonstrations

in moscow concerning the pivotal issue of electoral fraud. who in the final analysis is going to hold power. they follow the career of vladimir putin. when i first saw him after he was announced as yeltsin's successor, it was hard for me to believe that it was a mediocre individual could aspire to the position of head of state, in particular, if you bear in mind that his career was made not in the electoral politics but in the security services that he had no platform, he made no public appearances but he

refused to take part in any debate that his sole qualification for power was that he was appointed to the high position, and then under mysterious circumstances was able to pursue a war of revenge in chechnya. the only time up until that moment when he appeared with healton that i had been aware of him was during the scandal which surrounded the russian prosecutor general. having narrowly avoided impeachment was obliged or to accept as the prime minister who had opposition tendencies and was also anti-american but in any case after the economic carnage under yeltsin she

enjoyed support among the population for his opposition to some of the excesses of the corruption and he gave the prosecutor general the freedom to conduct meaningful the investigations of the people who were closest to yeltsin including she was a favor of his daughter who was the head of the property commission which controlled the real-estate and other buildings owned by the kremlin and he made a serious problems in which an operation organized by putin he was filmed

in the company of another prostitute. that in itself would not have been so unusual, but what happened next was unusual for any country even for russia. a video of this encounter was shown on prime time television with a brief morning that it might not be suitable for children. this operation ultimately led to the removal at the end of the threat of the prosecution against yeltsin's cronies and the promotion of vladimir putin. i had never taken him seriously before that. and i was barely aware of him even though in those years i was falling russian affairs as closely as i could. once she was not nominated as prime minister, he was designated the prime minister of russia, more strange things happened. bombs went off in russia

apartment buildings. these bombings in which 300 innocent people were killed or blame on the rebels but the was never any proof that the chechens were involved. putin spoke about the trail not the evidence, not the evidence not even suspect some, it seemed to be directed against the heart of russia against the ordinary people sleeping in their beds and their apartments in the middle of the night, women and children, old people, all of whom were blown to bits, and these acts to decide the whole country were used to justify the new invasion of chechnya and as a result of the initial success,

putin, whose popularity rating had been enthralled to yeltsin's and as a result was registered at 2%, and bear in mind they say that 6% of the respondents in any poll don't understand under these circumstances he was an absolutely negligible political figure with no chance to assume power after yeltsin completed his term. but after the verdict and executors of the victorious war waged in part in revenge for a heinous act of terrorism, he became instantly popular. and all of the anger in russia that had been built up over an entire decade of privilege and depredations by the small

corrupt group that was connected to yeltsin and the members of his family was redirected towards the chechens and putin was no longer -- i'm sorry, putin was no longer seen as a participant in the era of corruption. he was seen in status the savior of the nation who was defending it against an attack by terrorists. and this brought him to power. in december, 1999 parliamentary elections, the opposition which had been dominated by the communists became the opposition which was dominated by communists was wiped out, and a

pro putin parliament was created and it existed up until this time to use a in the years that followed, what we saw this, what we saw was the development of an autocracy in russia fueled by the good luck that put in had been placed in power the moment when the world commodity prices began to boom and russia became the foremost world beneficiary of the boom in the commodity prices. the mechanisms put in place by yeltsin similarly made it possible for russia to prosper, and the gross national product of russia increased six times. under these circumstances, the uneasiness people felt over

putin was submerged in the satisfactory that finally russia was at last experiencing something like a decent standard of living and that accounted for the popularity. but nothing lasts forever. and in so far as food unconstructed an autocratic system in which he control levers of power, and those who had personal connections to him monopolized not only power the property, and any possibility of an independent judiciary system was eliminated. the situation was created in which people began to feel the weight of the autocracy that was created in their daily lives, impossible to find justice, and possible to rely on wall, in

possible to express oneself through the ballot box, impossible to change anything, impossible to talk and impossible not to make a career without compromising yourself. slowly that discontent began to reach a critical mass and i think what happens in the elections just taking place and the people curdled in their factories to a polling places and coerced into voting for united russia, britain's control program party no longer are willing to put up with it. they showed their anger in a relatively modest way but there was the only way the was available to them by voting for the communists come by voting for just russia, buy voting for

the only parties on the ballot but were allowed by the putin exchange this change was unmistakable, and the fact that even under these circumstances people were still willing to go out and demonstrate in numbers that they had never shown before on a critical issue showed that the cracks are appearing in the autocratic system that has been created. some may say that these election results don't mean anything because the program parties that received more votes in the critical secretions are none the less going to vote in the way that putin wants, but what we have seen regardless of whether or not that's true and they may well be changes there is

political potential in opposing the ruling autocracy. nonetheless the demonstrated their sentence. they've demonstrated their dislike of the people who rule them and give them no voice in the running of the country. it's not going to be the same. will take more events, more confrontations between the civil society and the leadership, but the cracks in the existing regime which were papered over as long as russia was enjoying the them in the unprecedented growth are going to grow more and more serious because the regime that is as corrupt as this one and which allows political opposition as this one and it's real political self organization and its little rule will fall can only become more

corrupt, more repressive and more unyielding generating exactly the reactions it wants to avoid. so i think when we look back in a couple of years on where russia has gone, we will treat these results as extremely serious. and an extremely important for corrode we can only hope that subsequent offense and this will depend on the russians themselves will make possible for the russians to realize the opening to democracy that they lost so tragically after the fall of the soviet union and to build a new society in which the individual, the rights of the individual would be in perspective. >> thank you. to try to wrap it up, i would like to focus on details on the

issue by picked up from spending the hours of talking to the russian politicians, experts on the phone and through the facebook, going through the internet and trying to draw some conclusions. first of all when you were talking about the division in 2011 moved into the center of moscow we should ask ourselves who is it made after? is it named after the founder of the secret service that is responsible for execution of hundreds of thousands of people and then after his death the same system under stalin is responsible for executing

probably between 20 to 30 million people facilitating the worst man-made famine in the russian and soviet history in which five to 6 million people died it's all in david's book so by david's book. this is the equivalent dealing with unrest in berlin in moving the german army no longer in use but the german army the division it is inconceivable and it should be in russia that the division of troops that's supposed to shoot the people would harm the people would be named after the founder. there is a wealth of evidence

from people who filed the reports in their blogs or messages on facebook only witnessed the election fraud but in some cases the police were called and scream that called names and there's some women who claim they were beaten. granted as many times as you see on television, unconfirmed reports i don't think the events are moving so fast that people went out and found people necessarily every time and confirmed it. i talked to my former intern actually somebody i know. he wasn't my in turn who was in the city, and also as an

activist for the voice organization tried to observe the elections when it went missing tonnes and another point, and mr. putin called activists who receive support from the west and monitor the elections or he anticipated this accusation of elections, fraud and these people who are not treaters but judases, very heavy language committee charged language and this was such wording that brought a chill down my spine and the people who were involved in this non-terrie. anyone who took the grand for the ngo under threat and

immediately the members wrote a letter to the prosecutor's office initiating where is the prosecutor's office, where is the tax service and what are they doing not going up they were not bankrupt by that and it looked like the courts did with the higher ups wanted, but at the same time they didn't shut it down, so another point is people are hedging bets mr. putin and mr. medvedev himself. i was glad to find out today from mr. putin's spokesman and from medvedev's spokesperson who stressed in their press conference that neither putin nor medvedev are members of the united russia party.

they are leaders of the party list but they are not the members of the parties the party has to take the hit to take the blame then it will be the party, not the non-members of the party, mr. putin as an independent politician. if you remember before the election if the party performs well in the elections he will be the prime minister. the party did not perform well. does that mean somebody is going to offer mr. medvedev to the electorate that they can walk in, i don't know yet.