>> even though he didn't know about his lawyers collapse of the time. the supreme court is expected to render a decision before the end of the term in june. this is about an hour. >> where are your first this morning in case 10-63, maples v. thomas. mr. garre? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the case. two factors distortion this case from those in which the court has found cause lacking to excuse a default.

first, the state itself a direct hand in the extraordinary events leading up to the default in this case. and second, the actions of maples' attorneys, which rise to the level of abandonment, are not attributable to maples under agency law or other principles that this court has invoked in determining when attorney conduct may be imputed to a client. for either or both of those reasons, the default at issue in this case is not very a capable to cory maples, and a contrary decision of the 11th circuit should be reversed. >> you talk about the stage role. i assume that your talk about there is the failed to take action after the return of the notice is. >> that's right, mr. chief justice. i would couple that though with the fact that the state initially set up a system for the representation of indigent capital defendants that relies extremely heavily on the good graces of the out of state counsel to represent indigent capital defenders in alabama. >> what is the only one of the three notices had been returned?

>> i think it will be one from the out of state pro bono counsel, i think of the a different case. i think what's remarkable about this case is you have both out of state attorneys, the notices come back marked return to sender, left firm in an envelope, and the clerk does nothing. what's extraordinary about that, mr. chief justice, is that the system in this case were on the out of state attorneys to provide -- >> who says so? who says that they rely on -- at a local attorney, and you have to have a local attorney for the case, don't you? and you want us to believe that the local attorney is, has no responsibility for the case at all? is this really what the law requires? i think it is a serious ethical obligation when he has, when he gets the notice. he is one of the attorneys for your client. and he got the news, right? that one was not returned. >> that's correct. >> ifill to check with a near recluse who are working with them. why is the state responsible for that?

>> we have three points on the local council, your honor. first, the record shows that the notice is not attributable to mr. maples because mr. butler had to squint in a relationship apart from facilitating the admission of out of state attorneys. >> disclaimed to? i mean, how could a clerk be expected to know that the local council really isn't taking any part? i mean, so was the disclaimer to the clerk? >> i think, a couple things on the clerk's perspective. first, we do think that it was well-known in alabama that under this unique system, out of state attorneys were doing all the work in these cases, and local counts were simply facilitate their admission. second, one of -- >> welcome who says that, mr. garre? i mean, is there anything in the record on that point, on the alabama system generally? >> a couple of the things, your honor. we do have amicus briefs, which discussed that anecdotally. i would say that the case in alabama in its brief in

opposition to this court a few years back in the barbour case specifically touted the role of out of state attorneys under a system and, as was like ago, didn't mention local council wants. so i think was fair to say that it's known that the out of state attorneys you were doing all the work. but even if the clerk -- >> you're begging the question, which is how is the clerk supposed to know this? this is a functionary in the clerk's office who sends out notices, receives back notice that is not returned. there has to be some local council that does work. how is he supposed to know the difference between those that do and those that don't? >> i think the clerk would be imputed with knowledge, general knowledge of the system. but beyond that, what the clerk knew was this. unit two of the three notices were returned, both to the out of state attorneys, which ought to be an extraordinary event in the life of any court clerk. >> but even if local council is as you describe, and nothing in the record establishes it, even if he is a functionary, surely

the function would include when he gets a notice, that he makes sure that the people who do the real work know about the newt. >> of course. but the point is -- >> he didn't perform that function. >> in this case, the local council didn't perform as a mail drop, and that was intentionally so. his own affidavit makes that clear. and i think what's important is the state itself must navigate a -- >> i didn't hear what you said. >> my point was that ordinarily a local council would serve as a mail drop. he would forward notice. in this case, mr. butler made quite clear from the outset he was not in performing that role. the role that he intentionally performed was to admit out of state counsel and to let them do the work. >> where is the indirect? >> is in his affidavit, the petition at the index page 256. >> after the fact, right? >> that's right. >> did he tell the clerk of the court that was the case? >> he did not. >> he's the counsel of record,

right? i'm counsel of record but i don't even do so much as to forward notice is to the guys that are doing the real work. did he tell the clerk that? >> he did not tell the clerk but the state itself, your honor, must have viewed him as a meaningful player, because when the default at issue in this case occurred, the state sent a letter, facts to, to mr. maples directly on death row in alabama. >> you said that even before that, indigo, you said the rule 32, did you say something about the notice that went from the prosecutor to maples did not go to the local council, right? >> the clerk sent out notices to all three attorneys of record, the to out of state counsel and mr. butler. mr. butler did receive the news. he didn't do anything, both because he hadn't assume any role beyond facilitating admissions -- >> did the prosecutor, i'm not talking about the clerk now. the prosecutor had a filing in connection with the rule 32 motion. at the prosecutor send that to, well, everybody?

maples and everybody? >> he did not. the state, and this is at page 26 of the joint appendix. the states are a bit on his out of state counsel and that mr. butler, his local council. when the default occurred, mr. maples directly in prison, which would've been unethical if the state had known or believed that he was represented by counsel of. >> but you seem not to rely on what the state as prosecutor did. it seemed to be the state as prosecutor was recognizing that maples had no counsel. therefore, said she better value habeas, this is how much time have, senator jim. >> ice absolutely agree with you, justice ginsburg. i think that that is further evidence that everybody knew that mr. maples didn't have any local counts in any meaningful sense. >> where does the constitution say by the way that you have to give notice, that every judicial action has to be noticed? >> well -- >> to the parties to the case? the federal group -- the federal

will still require notice, do they? >> the constitution doesn't say that explicitly. >> and the federal rules don't say get. >> we think notice of a postconviction or any capital case would at least implicate a due process interest in receiving notice, that it's reasonable -- >> capital cases are different? if you're going to go to jail for life you don't give notice? >> i think under -- >> it's either a rule for all criminal cases or is not able. if it's a will for all criminal cases, the federal rules are passionate unconstitutional, using. >> the mullane case specifically takes into account the interest of the individual receiving notice. there could be no greater interest of an individual been receiving notice in a capital case into the dislike is at stake. ultimately, we don't think this court has defined a constitutional violation. >> once you're in court and let the lord on its up to your lawyer to follow what goes on and core. that's the assumption of the federal rules.

and it seems be a perfectly reasonable assumption. i'm not about to hold that they are unconstitutional simply because an extraordinary requirement of notice, which is not required by the constitution, has gone awry. >> here mr. maples did not have an attorney that was serving in an agency role in any mental sense. that's laid out in miss the mods amicus brief. it's laid out in our case. what's more is the state didn't we think white and reasonably rely on a role that local council was not performed in alabama. >> your case it seems to me turns critically on butler's role. how much in addition to what he did or didn't do we have to do to put them in a position where he was, in fact, representing maples in your the? >> i think that the ordinary role of local council, which would've been to, at a minimum, forward notice in the preceding, would be a meaningful relationship. the relationship that ms. demott describes here is one of said agency. if you look at the alabama

rules, they put the onus on the out of state counts to associate the local council. that's at page 365. the out of state counsel did that. mr. maples was not involved in a transaction. >> where do we look to see that it's standard practice for local councils throughout the country to contact out of state counsel when something like this is received? i remember a case from federal system in which local council appeared and did exactly what was done here, move the admission of an out of state criminal defense attorney, who then tried the case for year, got sick, and the judge said to the local council, come on in, if you're going to take over this trial and tried for the next six months. the local council said i only signed up to move the admission of his fellow. the judge said that's too bad, your counsel of record and have to take over the case. i don't understand that what is alleged to have occurred here is pepfar out of the ordinary. >> i think mr. butler, just

simply say, i'm going to allow, i'm going to facilitate your out of state attorney to represent you, but that's bible. he had quote unquote no role outside of that. >> he can define his role as a lawyer. once he'd -- once he appears before a court and says i am counsel of record he has certain responsibilities. if they don't extend even to forwarding notice, even to making sure that the people who were doing the legwork in the case note that the clock is running, my goodness, i can't imagine what his responsibility is. it's not up to him to define it. >> that's exactly our port, justice clear, which is that he forswore in irresponsibility. the lawyer in the holland case just had those responsibility. he abandoned his client. what mr. butler here did was inexcusable. when it's in in order, that by its terms directed at all counsel of record receive. that's what the order said.

it's on page 225 of the joint appendix. >> before you get to the court, could i ask you about what the state attorney, the prosecuting attorney, new? did the prosecuting attorney know that these two individuals from new york were representing this person? >> certainly, it new that they were counsel of record in the preceding. i let my friend answer that question. what we know that is when the default occurred it took extraordinaire step of faxing a letter directly to mr. maples in prison which would've been unethical if they believe he was represented by counsel of. >> so you think i'm in your view, the counsel of record knew that these two people in new york were part of the representation. i mean, not the counsel of record, the counsel for the state. did they council know that they had not gotten to noticed? >> i don't want to speak for my friend. i don't, there's certainly nothing in the record to establish that they knew that these out of state attorneys didn't get notice. >> is there any reason to think that the state attorney or

whoever was prosecuting thought that the local council was likely not to do much? >> yes. the very actions he took. >> so it's possible we will find out later that the state, the prosecuting attorney who works for the state knew all those things. one, he's represented by counsel in new york. to, they didn't have the notice. three, the local attorney isn't going to do anything. and conclusion, they likely knew he didn't get the notice, but they are asserting that this is an advocate state ground -- adequate state ground to bar him coming into haiti is, is that the correct posture of the case because that's true, justice breyer. >> all we have to decide is whether under these circumstances the state attorneys knowledge of all those facts mean that the state cannot assert that this is adequate state ground. >> right, and i think the states actions -- >> do we know that he knew all

of those i've? >> no. >> of course we don't know that. >> we know that what action it took, and the action was an action that is something he didn't have many full council, or else it would've been unethical. >> let me ask you, if i made. i don't know if, i don't think the brief is covered. it may be edited to note in alabama and/or nationwide, and how many capital cases there is no appeal? >> i don't know that, justice kennedy. i think the alabama system you created a system in which it would allow for appeals, not only indirect appeals, but postconviction proceedings. the extraordinary, there are several excellent new features of the alabama system, and we think that ultimately they helped to facilitate extraordinaire and shocking events in this case. >> what if, the new course did not abandon mr. maples prior to the time that they left their law firm in new york, right? >> that's right. >> so their conduct prior to the

time would be attributed to him, right? >> i think that's right. >> right. part of their conduct was setting up their arrangement with mr. butler where he would show up as counsel of record but not really do anything. so why aren't the consequences of that range been attributed to maples as well? >> i don't think it would be attributed. i think what you're looking for is whether the default itself is attributable to maples. was the out-of-state attorneys did is they left the representation without fulfilling their duty to notify the court or mr. maples. mr. maples was sitting in a prison cell in alabama under the reasonable belief that he was represented by counsel who would appeal if an adverse decision was issued. >> mr. garre, can i go back to justice kennedy's question? this was not an appeal. the question was how me capital cases is there no appeal. he had been convicted and had appealed, right? >> the direct proceedings had concluded. >> to direct proceedings were over but he had appealed up to

the state supreme court the d.c. circuit, to? >> he did. >> he did. and this was a postconviction. >> it was but when the state sets up the system and allows for appeals committee can't arbitrarily deprive him of an appeal based on the sort of circumstances your. >> that maybe but i don't think it's extraordinary that there be no appeal. >> i'm not aware of any state that does not allow appeal in postconviction proceedings. >> it can be allowed but it would not be seen to be excellent that it not be sought. >> in this case, there was a direct appeal, and then there was this proceeding that we are talking about here. the trial judge waited for 18 months. so, you think there's some merit to the underlying claim. any statistics on whether or not, on how often an appeal is abandoned or not pursued in this kind of case? no statistics? >> know. i mean, the statistics that i'm aware of are that hideous claims are in a material sense often successful in capital cases.

here we think the underlying claims are quite series, that the question in the case is really not to shot the victim. the quick is whether mr. maples was going to be convicted for capital murder, a murder that would result in life in prison if i'm aware of the allegations. >> and i think going back to the course and the clerks actions, one of the things that exacerbated the chain of events here was that you had an order which directed that all parties would be served. mr. butler did say that he saw that that order directed that the out of state council would be served, which created an added risk of the likely -- >> mr. garre, i have two questions for you. is this state the only one that doesn't appoint counsel in a postconviction capital case? >> i believe the alabama may. i believe george is another state that but in that respect i think -- >> but the vast majority do in

capital cases? >> vast majority do. >> aren't. number to get i thought there were two questions in this part of your case. the first is, don't we have to decide that abandonment, which you have termed, is caused -- >> yes. >> in a -- to excuse a procedural bar and a state court. >> right. and that is -- >> so we have to decide first whether we extend holland in this setting. >> well, i think they are independent grants to get the court concludes that the states own actions -- >> that's the due process. i'm talking about -- yes, both we would have to decide. we have to decide the first question. will be extend holland to this type of situation? >> i don't, i just want to be clear on this. there are independent grants but if the court concludes that the states actions -- >> i understand tonight but with respect to the attorneys, that's

right. >> what is the line, mr. garre, between abandonment and just plain old negligence? >> it would be the line established by agency law going back to justice story's time. >> so if his local counsel simply goofed in not advising the people that were doing the legwork in the case, why is that abandonment? >> i think it's actually more of a situation where he disclaimed any meaningful role at the outset. i think the real and intimate going on here was the attorneys in new york who left without notifying the court or the client. >> putting aside the question of local counsel, could we find that there was an abandoned if the law firm of sullivan & cromwell continue to represent mr. maples after the two young attorneys left the firm to? >> the court could. >> and as the record show that they did not represent mr. maples, that this was done purely by the two attorneys? is there a finding by a court on that? >> there's not a funny. we think that's the better

reading of the record, and i'm happy to explain why. but most importantly we think it's irrelevant whether he was represented by the law firm in the fictional sense. he was represented by individual lawyers in the proceeding. they were the ones who mr. maples agree to represent him in the preceding. the alabama courts make specific findings that mr. maples lawyers were ingen-housz and munanka. it said that after the default. >> in the practice of a law firm, these were very junior people. wouldn't the law firm have to have some involvement in giving them permission to provide this representation? i mean, usually there something like a pro bono committee and a higher level. can such junior associates just go ahead and say, we want to spend a lot of our time defending a man on death row? and they have to get some kind of permission? >> i think one would ordinarily expect that. and we were not condone the actions here. i would say that at the outset

of this litigation there were individuals from the legal aid society who were well familiar with capital cases and fall. they apparently dropped out of the case. >> what do we know about mr. de leeuw his role, mr. garre? >> we know what mr. de leeuw has said which is that he was involved in the case at some point. it's not clear what is involved it was. at the oral arguments in the 11th circuit, they were waiting for the action from the court. so we don't know what his involvement was. >> mr. garre, we don't know, we don't know. isn't that just prove that if we were to find that holland applied, the holland exception applied, that we would have to remain and biscay? >> i think that would be appropriate, your honor. we think the court should find that the holland exception, or more particularly -- >> in that regard, there is one part of holland that you don't really address. which is that holland contrasted a statute of limitations issue with respect to access to a

federal court with a procedural bar and said that the state's procedural bar had interest of federalism, that we had to be cautious of ignoring a state procedural bar because of federalism. if we were to extend holland in the way you want, how do we justify ignoring federalism in that situation? >> that's right. there are those distinctions. our point is that holland recognizes that attorney conduct that amounts to abandonment is external to the client under agency and other principles. coleman itself recognizes that external content is not attributable to the client and can't be a basis for cause. federalism interests are simply not implicated in the case where you find that the attorneys actions are external. we think if you look at the principles you looked at in holland, agency law going back to justice story's time, the principles of professional standards of care, you would

find that an amendment, of course that must be external to the client. justice alito said in his concurring opinion that when someone is not acting as an agent in any many false income it would be grossly inequitable and unfair to attribute the agents conduct to the client. >> could we go back to the state of the record? you said a few times, and your brief does, that the record is skimpy on very important matters. would you go further and say that the record is irretrievably corrupted, tainted by conflicts of interest to? i think there are conflicts of interest here. they are laid out in the legal ethics brief. the sullivan & cromwell attorneys were representing mr. maples up to the argument, the decision in the 11th circuit. but i think for purposes of what this court would do, i think a reading and would be appropriate because if you conclude, as we think you should, that abandonment of counsel would be an external factor that would be appropriate to reman for further proceedings if we don't know what these other turns were doing. the record doesn't show that. >> we do know though --

>> they hadn't told the court denied they were not counsel of record big mr. maples never agree that anyone else representing in a way that could bind him to the alabama court specifically found that only that they were not counsel of record, but they were not authorized to practice in alabama. this is on page 223 of the petition appendix. >> but it seems to me it's up to you to produce the facts that would justify our reversing the case that you're asking us to. we don't have these facts. send it back so i can -- no, you should've gotten the facts in the first place to get the record doesn't show that things that you need to show to get this case reversed, vacation not be reversed. it seems to be. >> the petition did include a request for an evidentiary hearing. i think the problem is that the both the district court and the court of appeals short-circuited the inquiry into council's actions because it believed that

coleman versus thompson applied in the abandonment situation. were a court made that kind of legal air, it would be appropriate for the court to send back and say no, coleman versus thompson does not apply in extraordinaire cases of abandonment. >> when did you first make the abandonment claim? >> well, i think we've argued -- >> when was it? wasn't it first made in the request for rehearing? >> i think explicitly. two points on this. >> that's rather late. >> we think that all along they argued that the attorneys actions backstab his cause. that's why both additional court and the court of appeals addressed and rejected the road is the under undergo an. >> that isn't abandonment. the attorneys actions established cause. that does not meet abandonment to meet. >> we think this falls squarely within the rule of the escondido case where the party makes the claim looked at the attorneys actions establish cost of you can make new arguments. and i think particularly given that sullivan & cromwell have

been involved early in this case, possibility of topics of interest would make it appropriate for this course to consider our abandonment issue which was raised in the petition. we think it's proper before this court. if there are no further questions at this time i'd like to reserve the root made of my time. >> thank you, mr. garre. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. and may please the court. and trying to sidestep coleman, maples is advocating at least three principles that are incompatible with the way our justice system works. first, maples is asking this court to hold that due process required not just actual notice to his attorney of record, john butler, but, in fact, something more than that. >> let's say the three notice are sent out. all three of them come back, okay? let's even go further and say the prosecutor knows that nobody representing mr. maples received

notice. what happens then? >> in that case, your honor, there would be a much more substantial argument -- >> yeah, i know it would be more substantial. that's why -- [laughter] my question is what happens with are you prepared to acknowledge that in this case, mr. maples had been abandoned by all of his lawyers, it was known to the prosecution and, therefore, the failure to file the notice should not constitute an adequate and independent state ground barring collateral relief? >> i don't think that the return of all three notice is what justified necessarily a finding of abandonment in toto by all the lawyers do it could signify a number of things that i do think that it would raise questions about whether the clerk of the due process obligation to do more under jones versus flowers. >> what does the return mean when you get, get a notice returned? it just said no longer at sullivan & cromwell, is what two of them said, right speak with

yes, your honor connect is that necessary mean that they've abandoned the case? it just means you've got the wrong address, doesn't? >> that's correct. >> isn't that the only thing it means for sure, that these lawyers are no longer at sullivan & cromwell? i don't know how that would be an indication of abandonment. can choose which a law firm and keep the click? >> absolutely. although the perception generate is that the client stays with the firm. the client certainly can move firms when the lawyer moves for its. >> i think we are going to issues. we're not talking about abandonment in this respect. we are talking about notice going to whine, and the clock ticking from a certain date that no one knows about. they were preparing for hearing before this judge. so they were not anticipating that he was going to rule without anything further. >> that's correct, your honor. they certainly were preparing for an evidentiary hearing. and the fact contrary to my friends statements about we know

about mr. de leeuw's involvement in this case, on page 228 of the ja, maples expressly alleged that de leeuw and others at sullivan & cromwell were preparing for the evidentiary getting. >> but as far as the record shows, de leeuw it was not on the record at all. there were three counsel of record. two of them, well, let's go back to the first issue. the state by its own conduct showed it didn't regard butler as any kind of representative, because it didn't even send its rule 32 response to butler, isn't that so? >> no, your honor. i respectfully disagree with that assessment of how we can read the service of the rule 32 answer. under all of them a law, a pleading or and/or may be served on only one counsel of record when the party has multiple counsel of record. so for example, that angela served upon mr. munanka.

>> what about the notice that he had lost in the alabama court and he better, he wants to go to the federal court, do something about it? that notice when only to maples, right? >> that's correct, your honor. estates attorney in that instance decided to send a letter only to mr. maples. >> and mr. garre made the point that is maples were represented, that that would be improper. to send a notice to maples alone. so, the state's attorney must have five -- must have font that maples had been abandoned by his lawyers because he didn't notify any of them. >> the record does not reveal why mr. hayden decided to send the letter to mr. maples alone. >> of course, he didn't have to

send a letter. that letter had no legal effect, didn't? >> that's correct. >> it was just, by the way, your time has expired. what could a lawyer do about it? and it was the required notice that he had to give to the lawyer or to anybody else? >> that's correct. >> so we just made this extraneous, volunteered statement to maples instead of to his lawyer. i don't know what that proves. >> at that point in time, the state case was over. so it was hardly clear if mr. hayden was going to do something that he didn't have to do under the rules. >> why did he do it? why did he do it then? just gloating that the fellow had lost? he must've thought there was a problem, right? >> he certainly was aware that mr. maples his lawyers had failed to file a notice of appeal. and his letter reveals that he is very aware -- >> is that surprising? i think justice kennedy asked her adversary, how often do appeals live from the denial of

state postconviction remedy? >> your honor, i agree with my friend that we don't have statistics on that front. i think it's fair to assume that, for the most part, when a rule 32 petitioner loses at the trial stage, they're going to appeal. >> in a capital case. >> particularly and a capital case. >> although there are some instances in which a capital petitioner or someone on death row decides that they no one want to invoke the process of the courts, and they are ready for the sense to be carried out. >> i just have two questions going back to the very beginning when we were talking about the misaddressed or the and received mail. when the notices come back no longer at sullivan & cromwell, that's just as it is said, functionally, don't you think, wrong address? >> not quite, your honor. i think that, that the noticing that the person is no longer at sullivan & cromwell indicates that the person is alone at the firm. i guess the notice good comeback speak i mean, it's pretty clear

they didn't get the mail, get the letter, because it is sent back. >> that's correct, your honor. >> one of the thing while i'm talking with you, and it's a tangential point, perhaps. could the state of alabama under your laws wave what you allege to be the procedural default? if you thought there is substantial merit to underlying claims, even though you take the position that they ultimately should be rejected, could you have simply waved the procedural default and allowed big appeal to precede? >> i don't think the law makes that crystal clear your honor. but i serving know of no one that suggests that the attorney general of alabama necessary has to assert every single potential defense within his or her arsenal. >> has alabama ever weighed lack of timely appeal in a capital case? >> i'm not aware, your honor.

>> council, could we go back to the chief justice's initial question? let's assume the two letters went to sullivan & cromwell and came back left firm, as they did, and that the letter to butler came back deceased. we did because in that situation to excuse a state procedural ground? >> perhaps, your honor. it would depend on why the letters came back from sullivan & cromwell, i suppose. >> well, we know that both lawyers in this case didn't move to another firm. both of them took jobs that precluded them from representing this defendant. so i don't know how i defined de abandonment other than i take a job where i can work for you anymore. >> the cause argument in that case, your honor, would be substantially stronger, as i said before, in part because

death, of course, is an external factor. >> so you accept. i mean, so you accept the idea that there is a distinction between malfeasance and abandon it. >> your honor, i think we would be prepared to recognize that in certain cases and abandonment of a client by an attorney would terminate the agency relationship with -- between the attorney and client. >> okay. so then the only thing, go thing we're talking about is whether, on these particular facts, there has been abandoned or not, right? >> that's correct. >> from your perspective. >> yes, your honor. but one thing i do want to stress is that my friend has suggested that an evidentiary hearing or further evidentiary proceedings are necessary on this particular question because we don't know what role the other attorneys at sullivan & cromwell played in the matter in it but we do know they were not counsel of record. we do know that the only to counsel of record were no longer

representing them, and he had no reason to know that they were not, but they were not -- they couldn't representing. the only two out of town council with a two for disabled themselves represent him by taking other jobs. there was no one from sullivan & cromwell other than those two on the record, so on the record. they had abandoned him and there was a sensitive. >> i disagree with that assessment. >> the argument is that on the record or not is determinative for the out of stay on council, but it is not determinative for the in town council. the fact that he is counsel of record doesn't count but the fact that those to our discount and only when you combine those two dozen men have no counsel, right? >> yes, your honor. it is that inconsistency in maples argued that on the one hand, maples is that the other

lawyers at sullivan & cromwell were not his attorneys because they were not counsel of record. was counsel of record but he wasn't his attorneys. the notice of inquiry is supposed to be a pragmatic wanted as far back as moe lane, we said if bush were supposed to ask ourselves is, is this what someone would do if the we wanted to accomplish notice, if they want the person to get that letter? on just going to ask you, if you're a lawyer in an important litigation and you send out an important letter to to lawyers, your principal adversaries, as well as to local counsel who you think may not be involved in the substance of the litigation, you don't know for a fact, but you think that there is some substantial likelihood that he is not particularly involved, as local counsel often are not. so you send off this letter and you get it back from the principal attorneys, and you ask yourself, should i do anything

now? what would you say? [laughter] >> your honor, i suspect that in those circumstances i might will personally do something else. but, of course, my prerogatives as solicitor general of alabama are quite different from the prerogatives of a clerk in morgan county, alabama. >> where as the clerk has to believe that it's an important letter, right? it's not important enough to be required by the federal rules. how important is that? >> justice scalia is right. i'm assuming that a letter disposing of the ruling in a capital case issued after 18 months when nobody knew that the letter was coming, that that's an important letter for a death row person to get. so, just as good is right that effect. so, you get this, and you say well, you would have. but that's the question that we have to ask about the clerk as well. the clerk -- the question for the clerk is, if he had really wanted the person to get notice, what would you don't? >> no your honor, i disagree.

as far back as mullane, this court has said at the end of the day actual notice to a party, particularly within the jurisdiction, is the finish line for due process purposes. >> you can see from these questions that the arguments that you're making in the capital case, which is sui generis, are pushing the court to consider rules that would have far-reaching effect, such as a rule that places upon a clerk of the court a constitutional obligation to serve counsel with important documents in the case of, similar to constitutional obligation to serve an initial process in the case. and the question that i would like to ask is whether this, what do you ask the solicitor general or the attorney general of alabama have an obligation to push this matter in this way. this is a case where, as i said, it's a capital case, as we all

recognize. mr. maples has lost his right to appeal through no fault of his own, through a series of very unusual and unfortunate circumstances. now, when his attorneys moved to file an out-of-time appeal, why wouldn't you just consent to that? if he did not receive an effective assistance of counsel at trial, why not get a decision on the merits of that? why push this technical arguments be? there are several responses, your honor. first, at least at the rule 32 stage, the notice of appeal deadline was a jurisdictional one. and you're right, the state did oppose the motion for an out-of-time appeal, but there wasn't much best they could of done even if it had consented on the front deck there's no possibility of alabama rules for an out-of-time appeal in this circumstance? no extension? >> the holding of the obama courts here, as recognized by the 11th circuit, was that this would not be an appropriate circumstance for an out-of-time

appeal. now as to the question -- >> is that a discretionary matter or is that a flat will, once you've passed a certain time deadline, you're out of luck, there's opportunity where there's a good cause for an extension? >> there is opportunity where there is good cause for extension. with alabama court held you was that this circumstance in which the person had counsel of record, and counsel of record hadn't notified the court of their changes of address, and more important, mr. butler who was, in fact, serving as mr. maples agent in this case and received -- >> this goes to my mind earlier question, and continuing just as alito's line of questioning. if the state of alabama had told the state court, in all of the circumstances, we think they should be an out-of-time appeal granted, are you indicating that the state court said well, that's a good idea that we can do it because it's not appropriate in the circumstances? >> that seems to be the holding of the court of criminal appeals

in this case. >> did you oppose it? it? devastated post-the out-of-time appeal? >> yes, your honor, the state did oppose the out-of-time appeal. and state pressed the procedure bore in federal court in this case. but the state at every prerogative to do so, in part because this court recognized in coleman, a case where the petitioner undoubtedly could have said that he lost his right to his appeal through no fault of his own, that the state had the power to do that. there are good reasons for the state -- >> could the state in -- excuse me. could the state in the federal litigation have waived the procedural default? >> your honor, i think the laws not exactly clear on that. but i know of no longer would say that the alabama attorney general has to press every single non-jurisdictional defense at his or her disposal. but he did not do so here and had good reason not to. that's in part because coleman says that this is how procedural defaults work. there are good reasons for procedural defaults.

they are grounded in the same equitable principles that led -- >> but you agreed with me earlier that abandonment is an exception to the adequate and independent state grounds. so under your view of the case, coleman was not necessary controlling. >> your honor, if i suggested that abandonment by itself is an to the aisg doctrine, let me correct my earlier answer to my suggestion is that abandonment can sometimes allow a court to determine that a particular lawyer has been terminated. of course, merely becoming external to the client doesn't mean that the payment itself will cost to cause. the abandonment also -- or the lawyers any of the relationship would also have 2mp the ability of the remaining members of the defense team or the defendant himself to comply with state rules. and here, even if there is some argument that ingen-housz and munanka abandoned their client,

which i don't think there is on this record in light of the waited of the case with butler, mr. de leeuw, and others at sullivan & cromwell, even if there were some arguments on that front, butler -- it's not clear that the actions of ingen-housz and munanka actually impeded the ability of the remaining members of the team. >> when employers stop representing a client, as the two did, isn't there some obligation of them to tell the client and the court, we are no longer representing you, and arrange for substitutions? there whenever any substitutions on the record of the other council. the record says these two people are representing, they both -- and those two were not. they never told the court, and they never told maples. isn't there some obligation on their part to the court when they stop representing a client to advise the court? >> yes, your honor.

i think there is. but i don't think that means what happened here constitutes cause. the record is clear, as mr. maples himself has alleged, that ingen-housz and munanka arranged for this case to be handled by mr. de leeuw, and the record makes clear that mr. de leeuw was involved in this case in representing maples even before the default occurred and even before ingen-housz and munanka were -- well, even before ingen-housz and munanka left, i should say. >> i'm still unclear on one factual thing. did the states attorneys know that the letters had come back? >> your honor -- >> or should they have no? >> your honor, the record is not clear on that point. i can represent to the court that the state's attorney did not know that the letters had come back. >> do they check the docket every so often to see what's happened? >> most attorneys have an obligation at some point to check the docket, and that's, that's one problem with a

position that mr. maples has taken regarding mr. butler here and the ability of these parties to obtain information from the court. but in this case, it's my understanding -- and this is not on the record. that is on the record obviously before this court now. but it's my understanding that the state had no idea that mr. maples attorneys, mr. maples to attorneys in new york had left the firm -- >> then why did they send to maples although the notice, you'd better find a federal haiti is? they didn't send it to those council. what made them said that notice directly to maples and not to either of the sullivan & cromwell lawyers? >> again, this is information that is not in the record, your honor. it's my understanding that council looked, figure out what happened, figured out the appeals had been missed, had calculated how much time

mr. maples had to file this 220 -- 20 to 54 petition, and based on his 20 years of expense, said that in light of the fact that the state court proceeding for over, the most prudent thing for them to do would be to send the letter to maples himself. >> so he gave it out that something had terminated the relationship and mr. maples and as lars? >> no, your honor, i don't think that's an accurate characterization of what exactly happened in this case. but in the very least, his lawyers had missed the deadline. >> even if you assume that he had figured it out, you have to into this knowledge to the clerk of course, to find the fault on the part of the state that is alleged your. >> more so than that, your honor. >> did he tell the clerk of course that he was only going to send it to maples? >> as far as i know, no, your honor. but, of course, the clerk, and notice came back to the clerk

long before the states attorney sent a letter in this case. but that's an important point i think both with respect to the clerk issue and also the abandonment issue. the relevant question here is not what the assistant attorney general of alabama font happened in this case. the relevant question on the clerk issue is what the clerk knew, and that, of course, is governed by rule seven of the rules governing admission to the alabama bar. the relevant question on abandonment is, had maples in fact been abandoned? had these attorneys left him completely without council? and the record definitively establishes that that had not happen, both because mr. butler remained council here and in a much more meaningful way, i think that my friends are just. >> council, could you tell me, i'm assuming you've practiced in your state for a while. >> yes, your honor. how frequent is in the alabama capitol system that local council takes the laboring oar,

or even an active participation, in the defense or actions of a capital defendant? the amici hears is generally they didn't mr. butler did, they just is located the admission of the volunteer attorneys. was that you're experienced? >> your honor, of course the information is not in the record. we respectfully disagree as a factual matter with the factual assertions made by the amici on that front. >> if we have to send it back, i guess we'd have to see what the rule is. what is the rule? what about a rule that says, where, in fact, attorneys to append the client and a local attorney does at his a matter of practice in the state do virtually nothing except to facilitate foreign representation, and where the state had cause to believe, cost to believe, that all that was true, then the state cannot

assert this as an adequate ground. that's all. >> your honor, the region and would not be appropriate in this case on those, on grounds for a number of reasons. one is that rule seven of the rules governing admission to the alabama bar made emphatically clear that the role of local council was not simply -- >> irrespective of what the rules were, you'd have to show that, you would have to show that, in fact, in the state it is a practice such that the local council doesn't do much if anything except to facilitate because it's just a state of mind as to whether the state and the state knows that. if he chose both of those things and shows that the letter came back and shows this was abandonment or close thereto, then the state ought to know that this individual had no idea about filing a piece of paper and thinks someone else is doing

it. and that's enough to say this is not adequate state ground that would block federal haiti is. now, your argument against that is what? >> at least twofold your honor. as a simple matter, but those factual assertions were not made below. in order for the corkery man on the particular issue a we may remain for an evidentiary hearing. >> icing in the breeze. there's certainly a lot in the breeze that seems to say that. >> but one problem mr. maples faces here is that he had the burden as the petitioner in this habeas petition to make the requisite factual allegations that he believed would establish cause. >> am i correct that under the alabama rules when an attorney is represented by more than one attorney, the notice does not have to go too often? >> that is correct your honor in that it can only go to one, right? >> yes, sir on. >> as far as local counsel new, he was the only one to receive

notice, is that right? >> that's correct your honor. >> with a new people listed on the notice that went to butler? >> yes, sir on a. unnoticed -- >> thing he knew he wasn't the only one getting noticed. or he knew that he was the only one who's supposed to get noticed. >> the cc line in this case cannot establish cause and cannot be deemed state interference for any number of reasons. the first is that, i suppose it could only be held to establish cause if it would've been reasonable for mr. butler to assume that the cc line communicated a message that it was perfectly okay for him to do nothing and did not take further action, based on what is in the cc line. there are three reasons why that would not be a reasonable reading of the cc line. the first is that the cc line doesn't communicate that ingen-housz and munanka, who are the people listed on the cc line, will, in fact, receive the order that allah says is that the order will be sent to ingen-housz and munanka.

the second is that, even if it would have been reasonable for him, for mr. butler, to assume that ingen-housz and munanka would receive the order in this case, it would not have been reasonable for him to have done nothing, given that rule seven of the alabama rules made him jointly and separately responsible to the client into the court in this case. >> i guess the problem is, except the rule, and it exists. but if a lawyer says, i don't care, i'm not going to do whatever the rules require me to do, what more do you need for abandonment? if hitler comes in and says, i understand this is a rule of the court, i understand that i'm supposed to do xyz, i don't care, i'm just not. that's the question. what's the difference between i don't care, and abandonment the? >> your honor, i guess i should just make a couple points in

response to that. first is that, as i understand the question posed about the cc line, that is all about not abandonment, but whether the clerks actions can be blamed for, or the default be blamed on the clerk. >> we're not talking about a notice issue. we're talking about the abandonment question. >> on the ebb and the question, if he really is true that butler had decided he was going to do nothing in this case and abreu to present his client and not be an attorney for the client, then you might be a viable arguments that butler was not, had abandoned the client in some way, but that is not the -- a reasonable reading of the record in this case the neck if we find -- >> if we find that these listed abandoned their client, will there be some sanction imposed upon them by the bar? i often wonder just as when we find that there's been any adequate -- there's been inadequate assistance of counsel in a capital case, does anything

happen to the counsel have been inadequate in a capital case? >> i suppose it would depend on exact with allegations are. >> have you ever heard of anything happening to them, other than they are getting another capital case? [laughter] >> your honor, i have not. certainly the rules provide that a breach of the rules of professional responsibly would be sanctionable by a stapler, both against the alabama attorney here in the new york attorney. >> you said a few moments ago that butler did more than your friend suggested. what more duty to? >> well, of course, we discussed in the brief but very, the undisputed the fact that butler filed numerous things, and after the default occurred in this case. but even -- >> well, after the default, sure. but what did he do before? >> butlers affidavit certainly, that was filed in state court proceedings certainly doesn't say, i was in this only to swear these people and/or move for the admission and nothing else. what butler says --

>> what did he do more than that? >> butler said, says on page 255 a. of the petition appendix that he agreed to serve as local counsel. local counsel has a specified meaning under alabama law. well, you made a fairly serious suggestion that your friend have not accurately represent what butler did. and you still haven't told me one thing he did more than of the admission of the out of town attorneys. >> well, let me withdraw any suggestion that it's in that butler had in fact done something that's, that's clear on the record. and my time is up. may i finish? >> your. >> my point was that butler did not simply agreed just to move these people, move these people's admission. butler said he would be local counsel. and local, the role of local counsel is defined by rule seven. it includes an obligation to attend hearings, conferences and the like. >> thank you, counsel. thank you. mr. garre, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice.

we agreed that this is a sui generis case. the facts are partner, the facts are stalking him and our position is simply that under this court precedents and extradite thatcher, mr. maples has established cost to excuse the default. with respect to local counsel, apart from the fact that this he communicate directly with mr. maples, and extraordinaire step after the default, maybe the other telling thing is that in 2006 alabama itself eliminated the local counsel requirement for pro bono proceedings, recognizing that it could only create problems, it didn't add anything. with respect to abandonment, i understood at times my counsel, my friend, to acknowledge that abandonment may establish an external event with respect to the clinic. if that's so, then i think it's clear that we are at a minimum entitled to every man's. there were statements about was clear from the record. i think at a minimum the record is not clear on a number of things the court would have to get into if we're going to consider adopting the state's

position that mr. maples was not abandoned the mr. maples was in a prison cell. his attorneys of record did not tell him that they had left the firm. they were required not only to tell the court -- >> we don't have to adopt the state's position that he was not the band. we have to adopt a position that he was abandoned. >> you have a record of the attorneys leaving without owing not notify mr. maples, not notify the court, and not attend the course approval, which is required, by rule 6.2 of alabama rules of criminal procedure. >> what is troubling to me is the fear that if the court says that abandonment is cause, there will be many, many cases in which the allegation is, my attorney was just ineffective and negligent, the attorney was so bad that the attorney in effect abandoned me. and that will substantially change existing law. now, how can that be prevented? >> working to agency principles that go back to justice stories time, working to principles established in the court decision in holland and i will

be applied in holland to the lower court in holland issued its decision and found that mr. collins had abandoned mr. holdren, using discourse president as a guide. so i think holland already recognize that attorney abandonment can be extreme. we're just asking the court applied the same principles in recognizing that vast external in one context cannot be not external in the out of context. ..

this is going to be a fact. you want to get into the specs although i think it is a very high bar. i think the holland decision makes clear the high bar and they think this case clearly passes the bar but it's something the courts will work out applying agency principles, applying the court's decision in holland, recognizing what holland said in this case is an going to create a new rule. is simply going to extend logically the recognition that attorney abandonment is external to the client and it always has been under agency principles. this court doesn't have to find a constitutional violation of the state park. it's enough for cause that the court finds the state actions are external and i think the key is where justice kagan recognize which is you look to what a person who is actually desirous of providing -- in a situation the clerk got to notice his back, and if he opened up you would have seen this was an order in a capital case.

don't think anyone who actually desired to provide notice of an inmate whose life is on the line would do nothing reasonably enough situation. mr. maples is not asking to be released from prison. is asking for an opportunity to present serious constitutional claims of any -- and effective assistance council in habeas corpus. the claim is meritless and clearly will have little burden on it but simply allowing those claims to be adjudicated on the merits in federal court will go a long way to preserve them in the municipal system of criminal justice in a case where a man's life is at stake. >> thank you council. the cases submitted.

>> this week week on q&a, former supreme court justice, john paul stevens, looks back on his 34.5 years on the court and speaks about his new book,. c-span: justice john paul stevens you have a book called the supreme court memoir, but it's called five cheats. why? s. go well, because it's a book

about chief justices of the united states and the reason i have written about five is that i have had personal contact with five of the most recent five chiefs, so they are the five. rieke let me put on the screen a slide that shows these five names and the times that they were serving on the court, and it starts with fred vinson, who was nominated by president reagan in. he served seven years. earl warren by president eisenhower served 15 and a half years, warren berger about 17 years appointed by richard nixon and william rehnquist by president reagan, 19 years and john roberts as the current chief justice by president george walker roche, six years. start with fred vincent. what did you write about him?

>> well, two parts of it i guess. i haven't taken a second look at it recently, as i mentioned to you, but there is a discussion of his appointment, a little bit about his appointment and about his work, partly through the observations of one of his former law clerks who was a classmate of mine in law school and remains a very good friend. as a matter of fact we were born on the same day so we have a lot of reasons to be friends, but in talking to a art, it gave me some things i thought would be of interest to the book so i got -- that is one source and the second source is my own experience when i was working for justice rutledge and i had a few chances to come in contact with chief justice vinson during that period and so i talk in the

book a little bit about the things that i had personal contact with and perhaps at a little greater length about some of the opinions he wrote, particularly in the year that i was clerking up the court. c-span: what year did you clerk at the court? >> guest: i clerked on october 1947 term. that was, can i went to work i think sometime in september of 47 and i was there until i guess the end of june or early july of 48. c-span: that year you were there, what did you take away from it? >> guest: i took away a lot. that is a wonderful experience, other former law clerks can tell you. i don't cover all of this in the book of course but i took away some wonderful friendships with clerks and other chambers and i learned an awful lot about the law and about what the working of the supreme court and things

that are still pretty much the same as well as things that have changed over the years. and so it was a very rewarding professional experience. c-span: how did you get that clerkship? >> guest: well that is kind of a long story too. the congress authorized a second clerkship for members of the court in the summer of 1947 if i remember correctly. and justice rutledge decided to hire a second clerk and he was broached by two members of the faculty at northwestern. he later became secretary of labor and patrick who had clerked for vincent when he was a field judge and they were persuaded both simpson and rutledge, to take advantage of the opportunity to hire a new

clerk pursuant to the statute and they persuaded them to to northwestern graduate of the wealth of qualified for those positions and the two that were qualified were my good friend art and i who had pretty good grades at northwestern and they thought both of us were qualified. and so, late in the spring or i guess it was early summer of 47, they had a meeting with us in the low review office at northwestern and told us that they thought these two clerkships were pretty certainly available, and said they weren't sure which one should go for which job, and suggested they would like us to make that decision. and as it turned out, the clerkship was -- with rutledge was available the following year whereas the additional clerkship with vinson was available the

year after that and it was a two-year requirement whereas the rutledge was necessarily a one-year requirement. art and art and i both felt we were ancient citizens because we had experience in the war and we were older than we thought other, you know, there law graduates might have been before the war and we were both anxious to get into professional work as soon as we could. so we both preferred the rutledge clerkship even though the chief justice clerkship sounds like it might've been a better job. so we settled it by flipping a coin. and i won the coin flip and had the privilege of getting started with justice rutledge after we had done the coin flipping. we still had to get the job really consistent with the question, what we applied for. but those professor words and

professor seder and other members of the faculty supported our applications and persuaded the justices that we were indeed qualified. c-span: now did you have willard words -- >> i took labor law from him. c-span: your friend art seder is he still alive? >> guest: yes. c-span: i have to ask, you have lived a long time, 91 years? >> guest: yes, 91 and a little more. maybe i mentioned it ardent i were born on the same day. c-span: would have u2 done that is kept has kept you alive all these years? >> guest: well we have worked hard. we have exercised and we have had good ties from our respective spouses and have lead interesting lives and happy lives. that makes a big difference. c-span: where does he live now? >> guest: he is in charlottesville, virginia. c-span: go back to fred vinson. what do you remember about fred

vinson? was he a big man? where did he come from and how did he get on the court is chief justice? >> guest: well, he was not a big man. he was heavy. he was a heavy man and in fact that is one of the incidents i think i worked into the book. on occasion, when his messenger, who would usually drive him to work and back, back to the hotel where he lives. i can think of the name of right now. i would occasionally have to drive him home in his beat-up old ford. the car was several years old and vinson had a little trouble getting in and out of the car because he was heavy. and he remembered writing up to wardman park and the doorman seeing his car put issue in the way until he saw that the chief justice was in the front seat and then he treated him and a

much more cordial way. and then benson with some difficulty would get out of the car and he would go home. c-span: he was there seven years as chief. do you remember what significant impact he had on the court and how he ran? >> guest: well, as far as i could tell, he ran well. there was some feeling i think in the year or two before i got there and before arts got there, that there was some friction within the court particularly jackson was concerned that he didn't become chief himself and there was some feeling that there might have been some antagonism between jackson on the one hand and hugo black on the other. i never actually witnessed anything like that, but there have been a lot of writing about it and i think there is some merit to it. i mention it because as i said,

there was a sense there might be some personal and antagonism within the court at the time, but when i got there, i found it entirely different. i remember at a seventh circuit conference sometime around 1970 or so, thurgood marshall came to chicago and answering questions from the audience, he was asked about constant antagonism within the court and he said no we are all perfectly good friends. i remember thinking to myself, well that is for public consumption but maybe it's not true. and so when i joined the court myself in 1975, i was sort of wondering whether thurgood's story was accurate or not and it was dead accurate. i should've known. thurgood is a very honorable person. in fact one of the most trustworthy man i have ever met.

and it turned out to be true. when i got there, the personal relationships were really excellent and that was chewed during my entire tenure. c-span: what impact the chief justice vinson have on brown v. board of education? >> guest: well, of course he was achieved while the case, during the first argument to the case then during the early deliberations but he died before the court was able to decide it. it's a little difficult to know exactly what his whole world in the decisional process was, but i think he was achieved when they ordered the argument and they ordered the lawyers to make rather extensive arguments on historical issues. they had quite a lot of reefing about the history of the 14th amendment and what the attitude of the sponsors of the amendment were. and so he was, and a lot of that

i think was suggested by justice frankfort. and so i don't know just you know who had what role in that as those deliberations developed. but, after earl warren became chief, then they had an additional argument and that is when it was decided and it was decided in an opinion that really had very little to do with history. c-span: i want to put on the screen some other statistics and ask you a question. when you retired from the court i really wanted to ask you, i saw these numbers. let's put it out there. these are the longest-serving justices in history. there are 112 justices on the william o. douglas served the longest, over 36 years. steven johnson field serves 12,614 days. usurps 12,611 days. you were three day short of being the second longest-serving

justice in history. did you know that? >> guest: i really didn't. people often ask me questions about whether i was trying to set a record or anything like that and i really didn't particularly want to be remembered for the length of my service. i've never really paid much attention to it because that is not necessarily a testament to the quality of your service or its importance. so i didn't -- i was interested to learn later that i was supposed to -- and i also have been told or read somewhere that he really shouldn't get that many days because for the last several months of his service, he was either sick or he wasn't able to participate, so i think maybe i may have even performed more time of active constructive service on the court than he did. c-span: i mean people that watch think you would outdo william o.

douglas and become number one serving justice. >> guest: of course i exceeded him and he has served much longer than i did i think. c-span: over 700 days longer. when did you retire from the court? >> guest: well, it was the day after the last day, not this last term but the term before. c-span: 2010, june or july. >> guest: right. c-span: the next justice you write about his earl warren and before i get you to talk about him some let's watch. this is a 1952 clip of him on their wet in our program that used to run on television in black and white. he was the governor of california then. listen to what he has to say about the world in 1952. >> i don't believe that we can continue to travel the road to

insolvency by piling up the national debt year after year and a time of peace. there is always a day of reckoning and i believe that we have to do that. i believe that, i believe that we can and that we must. restore integrity in government and the confidence of people in the integrity of their government. >> guest: he was a member of the tea party. c-span: he was a republican governor the state of the california and was by the chief justice of the supreme court. what do you remember of him and where did you meet him? >> guest: my memories of him go back long before i first met him and i really never had an informal meeting with him that i had with the others that i mentioned. my first personal contact with

him was the day i presented an oral argument to the supreme court, which i still remember vividly because even though i had witnessed a lot of -- is a law clerk and practicing lawyer over the years when i got up to argue this case involving an issue that nobody would care about today, there he was. i had the feeling that there he was right in front of me and i had this vivid memory of being fat close to the chief justice of the united states, which is an experience you don't forget. and as a matter fact i think i may have mentioned this in the book, i have talked about this with john roberts and with ruth ginsburg and with elena kagan and they all have this -- remember the same sort of sensation at their first argument. is really a very memorable

event. c-span: what happened to the case you were arguing? did you win? >> guest: no, i lost. i lost and it was not an earthshaking case, but they did decide a question of statutory construction under the cost justification defense under the robertson patman act. peco you serve 30 for some years on the court. what has it been like for you since you left? i mean, and why did you write the book? >> guest: well, it is kind of a story, it's sort of grew by itself. when i had left the court, i was invited to attend a fairly large number of informal sessions, where i talks to smaller groups like the rotary and groups in arlington and elsewhere, and i was repeatedly asked one of the

questions that i always got was usurped the chief justice. tell us a little bit about how they were alike in how they were different. people seem to be interested in the possible differences between different chiefs and then i thought back further and actually i had some contact, not as intensive, with five and the idea came to me that there might be a fair amount of interest in talking about the chiefs and in fact, i remember talking to john roberts about the same time and i thought the public did not have a full understanding of all the work the chief does. there's a fair number of additional responsibilities and i thought it might be of interest to tell a little bit about some of the things the chief does that are different from what the other members of the court do. and also the other side of the

coin was i wanted to make the point that when we are deciding the merits of cases which is of course the most important thing we do, the nine of us really are all equal. the chief had a certain procedural responsibility and one actually voting on the outcome of the case, he is just one of nine. so the, in both the interest of letting people know a little more about other work of the chief as well as making an appointment in the soviet -- associate justice he is equal on our most important work in that backed up backup both of those thoughts and merited the discussion. when i got into writing it, different ideas came to me and as i may have mentioned on other occasions i enjoy writing. i like the work of writing opinions while i was it justice so this was -- has replaced a lot of the work that i was doing as an active judge.

and so i should say that i also have a section in there about the first 12 chiefs who became, just as the background, and that was suggested actually by my agent who suggested that would be helpful, so i wrote that after, pretty much after the other parts of the book were put together. that is not a study in depth about the earlier chiefs but sort of something to get these people who are not as familiar with the court as some scholars and some of the rest of us are, give them a little background and i thought it might be of interest. c-span: what impacted earl warren's 15.5 years experience have on the country? >> guest: it had a tremendous impact. of course, i think the most important case was brought against the board of education which he is famous for and i

think they will be responsible for producing a unanimous opinion but as i suggested in the book, i don't think the unanimity of the opinions is as important as the result itself are quite don't think it would have been the end of the world if there had been assenting opinions expressing views that were fairly prevalent in society at the time and so i have never been one who thought unanimity was the absolute requirement and often as i suggested in the book, a sense will actually improve the quality of opinions because everyone knows what arguments were considered in what the answers are too specific arguments so i have never been one who thought that the unanimous character was the major achievements. the major achievement was the result itself which i think was obviously quite clearly correct and it just thinly it is about

that case. i think the decision is not the product of the history and all the historical research that frankfurt had suggested because a lot of that history suggests that the people who adopted and ratified the 14th amendment did not anticipate or realize that it might put an end to segregated schools. i think the principle adopted required that result but i am not sure as a matter of original intent if you look at that term, that this is a case in which the original, the actual intent is the same as the result that they produce. c-span: you were appointed and 75 by gerald ford. >> guest: yes. c-span: you served under warren berger. >> guest: yes. c-span: yeah, i'm sorry. i made the mistake. you don't serve under anybody. >> guest: that is exactly

right. c-span: let me go to the clip of warren berger. >> guest: everyone says that. c-span: let me show, we did an interview where you talk about what he was chairman of the bicentennial commission of the constitution and we didn't interview with him. him. here is a clip so if people have not seen warren berger they can see what it looks like. >> we have give or take 1500 in the federal judiciary including magistrates and bankruptcy judges. there are nearly 1000 life tenure article iii judges now. now they are there because we need them and we need more. congress is constantly expanding federal jurisdiction but we have to have more machinery to take care of it. c-span: what was it like serving with chief justice warren

berger? >> guest: well, there of course are all sorts of aspects. he is a very likable man and he was judged by others sometimes is being a little pompous and more regal but he was a good residing officer and a very gracious public person. he handled public affairs very well. and the internal deliberations, i think he was less confident than either of his two successors. i will be frank with you, he did many fine things but i don't think he handled the conferences as well as either bill rehnquist or john roberts did. i don't think he was as accurate in the assignment of opinions as he might have been. at times, he assigned opinions

to members of the court who didn't actually have the votes of four other colleagues on every issue in the case. so he was less than perfect on his work as a presiding officer in conference, but i think he was an excellent presiding officer in the public proceedings. i think he was very fair to both sides and when there was the necessity for more time to make arguments, he would frequently allow a little extra time in argument. c-span: part of the court that the public knows very little about is the conference. where is the conference room and who is in there when you are discussing the case? >> guest: the conference room is just east of the courtroom across the hall and back in the back of the building, and the people in the conference room during the conference are the nine members of the court and no

one else. in fact, whenever it's necessary for somebody to send a message into the court, they will knock on the door in the junior justice has the responsibility of getting up and answering the door. as tom clark used to say, he is the highest-paid doorman in the country. that is your qualifications when you get there and i don't remember if i put this in the book but i remember my first or second conference, i was paying very close attention to the discussion as i remember it and i fail to hear the knock on the door. and brennan on my left and bill rehnquist on my right both got up and answer the door and it made me feel like i was about two feet high. i learned from that. it's one of the most important jobs of the junior justices to remember that you are doorman. c-span: one thing you do discuss

in your book is the difference being in a conference run by warren burger or bill rehnquist or john roberts. can you explain the differences and how warren burger changed what happened in the court, about how you participated? >> guest: well the change, i think he is responsible it, but i can't testify from personal knowledge or actual but i'm quite sure that the changes the change in the order of voting that he made. when i was a lot clerk under rutledge, he would talk about what happened in conference with his law clerks afterwards and he explained that the case would be discussed with the chief justice, describing the case and then the justices talking about the case in order of seniority, explaining their general views of the the case and so forth until they went to the end of the line.

but then the voting began with the junior justice and was followed in reverse order. and i know that was the practice when rutledge was on the court when i was a law clerk, and he would show this node and he was the second to vote. burton was the most junior justice and when i got there, i was surprised to find that the chief not only discussed the case but also voted and that is what happened. the order of voting was in order of seniority and i can remember talking to bill rehnquist from time to time because he was the second junior. the two of us sat next to one another and we both exchanged the view that we preferred the earlier practice because it gave the junior justice, we felt, it would give the junior justice a better opportunity to persuade our seniors if they had not committed themselves of a

particular position. but then when he became cheese -- achieve his views on that issue changed and he went along with the other few. c-span: explain the difference between chief justice, with their responsibility is and an associate judge? >> guest: well, the chief as i say, has the responsibility. he could just go right away but he states the case and what he thinks the controlling issues that need to be decided art before he explains how he would vote. so part of his role is setting forth the basis for further discussion. and as i think i say in the book, it's my memory and any event, warren burger was not as articulate and as skillful and setting forth the issues in a concise and unbiased manner as

either of the chief justices were and often when warren was the chief, either bill brennan or sometimes stewart was particularly articulate. stewart was a really brilliant lawyer and he would state the case all over again. he would state the issues in a more neutral fashion and then the discussion would proceed. but as i say, that is one of the things in which i think burger was less skillful than some of the others. i don't mean to suggest to you that he wasn't a good lawyer. warren burger was a very good lawyer and had argued cases in the court, the head of one of the divisions of the department of justice after eisenhower was elected. c-span: you say in your book about warren burger that, although he upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty that he personally was against it. >> guest: definitely. c-span: and sue was harry blackmun?

>> guest: no doubt about it on many dictations our many dictations i heard them say this is not what i think ought to be the case but it is a matter for democratic process to decide and the role of the judge was too obviously not to put forward his own views but rather to follow what he thought was right. c-span: did he ever say that publicly? >> guest: i would assume he had. i don't know. c-span: how often have you found that a justice will rule one way or write his opinion one way or join an opinion, when he or she disagrees? >> guest: very often. that strew of every member of the court on one or more issues. c-span: can you give us an example of when you did that? >> guest: it happened many many times. i just don't have one off the top of my head right now. c-span: let's go on. >> guest: i will tell you one. the case in california, the case

involving the enforcement of the federal narcotics laws against the abuses of medical marijuana in california, wanting to grow it on their own premises and the question was whether under the commerce clause the federal government had the power to enforce that statute and i thought it was quite clear as a matter of power the federal government could do just what it was wanting to do but i thought it was very unwise policy and so there is a clear mismatch between my policy views and my views of what the law was. c-span: you also mention your book that you and david souter had it in agreement that he would tell you when it was time for you to quit? >> guest: that is exactly right and i think i may explain it in the book. i had the same agreement with john hastings on the seventh circuit. he was an excellent chief judge there and he had asked me to let him know if he thought, if i

thought he was not performing, delivering the same quality of work as he had in the past. he by the way was also a man who rode out the first draft of his own opinion. and i remember that when i went on the court and when david kay mai asked david if he would tip me off because it's something i think every judge, gets on in years, has to realize and you have to appreciate the views of others on that issue. you are not the best judge. c-span: did he ever -- >> guest: he never did but that is maybe one of the things that triggered my retirement. he left before i did so i didn't have this protection any more. i figured that was a serious breach of contract on his part to resign before he did. c-span: you say you sent a letter to the white house and it ants, telling them that you are going to retire. how much time did you give them?

>> guest: i don't remember. it's all a public matter i think. i didn't announce that letter at the same time i said it. c-span: i don't remember but i just wondered. >> guest: i think sometime in june. c-span: what triggered it though? do you remember the moment that you said that's it, i'm getting out? >> guest: it was actually a process and i was asked this in another interview recently and i think i misspoke about the details. but i began thinking a bit more seriously as the years went by and i think for i don't know how many years, i think i'm more than one occasion i may have mentioned to my law clerks that i should be giving thought to that and did they have any suggestions. and they were very vociferous in trying to persuade me that i should stay whenever i did raise it.

and then i guess david required -- retired but the year i did retire i decided just to hire a one law clerk and that's was publicly known so i was obviously seriously considering at that time that that would be my last year but when i did that, i guess three of my, three out of the four told me if i change my mind they would work for me in the following year so if i made an irreversible decision. and then i guess the event that really sealed the decision for me was when i had -- well i didn't have to but when i decided to announce my oral dissent and the citizens united

case. for some reason i had trouble making the oral announcement. i stumbled with some of the presentation, which i felt was unusual. i have lot i could be reasonably articulate in the years before and i became conscious that i didn't do a very good job in that particular occasion. i decided then and i think i may have mentioned it to steve breyer that very day that maybe i would have to give a little thought to changing my career. c-span: you still have an office in the court. >> guest: i do. c-span: heavyset on any circuit court cases? >> guest: no i haven't been one of the important bits of information about retirement that i learned from the chiefs, solicitor to the chief bad i keep my chambers in my law clerk and my secretary even if i don't

sit on cases but if i don't sit on cases i will not be qualified for a raise in pay. if congress ever grants a raise in pay. i think court is entitled and deserves better play of -- pay but i'm not going to lose any sleep. c-span: is the fourth chief justice william rehnquist who was there for 19 years. let's watch an interview clip of him. >> today we do have a system called the cert pool, cert standing force tertiary certiorari in which the first five, six, now eight of the judge clerks pooled their law clerks to write the most about the 5000 petitions for certiorari. that did not exist when i was a large clerk. my co-clerk and i divided up 1200 cases between ourselves and wrote little memos to him in that way. and i think justice stevens who

is a clerk not in the cert pool still operates that way. c-span: with the true? he did not operate as a part of the cert pool? >> guest: that is true and it's exactly right. and, you might be interested in knowing that justice alito although he was a member of the first cert pool his first year and i don't know, the second or third has decided to operate independently so that there are now, although there for a while there were nine members of the pool, there are only eight again. c-span: that was recorded some years ago and there were 5000 cases presented every year and there are now 9000. i think chief justice roberts that there are something like 9000. but have you changed your mind at all about how the cases are decided? i know that you talk in the book about the fact that there used to be a lot more cases argued and i think it was justice burger that reduce the time to 30 minutes on each side?

>> guest: i think that's right. c-span: it used to be longer oral are -- arguments and you suggest in the book they have to go back to longer oral arguments. >> guest: i think they should go back to longer oral arguments in a fair number of cases. i don't think they should do it in every case but they are really for two different reasons. one is having a smaller docket gives you more time and the time available is for hours in each argument a day. it used to be two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. and now, they very rarely sit in the afternoon so they have the time available. the second change is that particularly in cases with multiple issues that are rather divisive, there is an awful lot of time taking up in questioning and i think more time that is taken up in questioning these

days than there was when i first joined the court or when i was a law clerk and i think so much time is taken up that sometimes the lawyers really don't get an adequate opportunity to say everything that they plan to say. and so i think that in those cases, more time would be more fair to the lawyers and more helpful to the court, and also the whole process would be approved. i don't think they have to do everything -- every case. c-span: what about chief justice rehnquist? what do you most remember about him? >> guest: there are many many things i remember about him. in fact having watched the redskins on sunday, i think i would have won two bucks from him. c-span: you bet every game? >> guest: we bet on virtually every game. normally it was a very dollar bet. was very serious. c-span: who on the boat?

>> guest: bill usually one. i attended to lee led my desire influence my vote more than it should have. c-span: what impact did he have on the running of the court? >> guest: well he was a more efficient presiding officer, both in the conferences and in open court as well. i think perhaps he may have been too efficient in open court. he is very very firm and when the red light goes on the hour was over. and i think there are times when he might have been wise to give a little more time but on the whole he did an excellent job. he was totally impartial. he treated all litigants exactly alike and they all had to watch the lights. c-span: you mentioned when you're talking about that a man that everybody knows and that is former senator arlen specter. he tried to get a couple of

words in edgewise when he was in front of the court? >> guest: yes, he was arguing the case, representing a client, can't remember the details of the case right now and wanted to continue argument, and the sign was up in the chief insisted that the argument was over. i think senator specter had never forgiven him for that. c-span: not only does he appear not to have forgiven him but he also introduced legislation to try to force the court to go on television. >> guest: he believe very firmly that the court should go on television. c-span: what was your belief about the resolution that he tried to get past? >> guest: i discuss that in the book. on the one hand televising the court would be good for the court and for the country because i think people would realize that the justices are very thorough in their

preparation for arguments and their understanding of the cases. they ask intelligent questions and people i think are generally favorably impressed when they see the core network. and so that is a very strong plus and that is really i think what senator specter is primarily interested in but the other side of the coin is that television often has unexpected and unintended consequences, and you are never 100% sure that it might not cause a change in the procedure and it would have an adverse affect. you mentioned football a little earlier. i remember going to the game, sitting in the stands and all of a sudden the players are standing around. you realize it's a commercial. television has the commercials then so television change it and the televising of legislative proceedings i think has sometimes had an adverse effect on the quality of what goes on. so you are never 100% sure what

the consequences of televising would be. and i think that the members, think us of them feel more strongly than i do or did but i think they are very concerned that televising might have an unforeseen adverse impact of both lawyers and an occasional justice might behave differently than he would have he was not being televised. c-span: what is your guess as to what will happen over the years with television? for instance just yesterday when we were recording this the pennsylvania state supreme court made a, had a public meeting where they went on television for the first time and now all of their proceedings are on television. >> guest: i think the florida supreme court was one of the first to do that too and they basically the experience has been, has not been adverse. in fact, they have a library i think in which the lawyers can

look at prior arguments and learn a little bit more about the best way to proceed, so i don't, from what i understand, don't think this standard has been used in state court. i think one reason for that is that it's not the most popular program in the world. i don't think there's a tremendous audience in the everyday argument of every state supreme court decision they did argue whereas i think the audience would probably, at least in some cases, be larger if the argument was the united states supreme court. c-span: do you think it will ever go on television? >> guest: never is a long work but i wouldn't hold my breath, that's for sure. c-span: in the book you talk about the fact that chief justice rehnquist had before gold stripes on his, help me out here. on his row. what did you think of that idea and did you ever tell him what you he thought of that?

>> guest: well, i am not 100% sure to tell you the truth. he did at one time before he had his own robe decorated with the strides he did make the suggestion to all of us at an informal gathering that he thought that the robes of some foreign dignitaries that were worn were very impressive and we ought to give thought to it. i think i remember this and again, this is not in the book but perhaps i shouldn't even be saying it publicly but i think i remember sandra o'connor saying his suggestion reminded her of president nixon's suggestion that he should have the military personnel of the white house in white uniforms. she thought it was a very bad idea. and she also thought it was a bad idea for the court to depart from the very conservative lack robes that we have always

followed. and i don't think that she -- former address to identify himself. c-span: what would be the legalisms of that? could you have put four stripes on your robe if you wanted to? >> guest: i assume i could. i don't know. c-span: could the other justices have prevented the chief from putting four stripes on his robe? >> guest: that is an interesting question. i don't think so. i don't know. i suppose if we had felt strongly enough about it as a majority, asked him not to do it i'm sure he probably would have respected it but that is the kind of thing that each member of the court pretty much respects the judge -- judgment of the member who may be doing it. c-span: who assigned him something as simple as an office? how do you get to choose your office? >> guest: well, a little bit

like asking who decided he was going to be chief? a lot of these things just happen and they have never been change. it has been part of the practice and tradition throughout the court. the first chief i guess was designated chief by president washington, but i don't think there is any law that would offend the members of the supreme court from treating that office as other state appellate courts do where they either rotate the chief one year or the other or the elex lx five truth -- so i don't think there's a statute or provision in the constitution of which i am aware that specifies that the president shall nominate the chief. he has always done it and we have always been happy with it so we haven't even thought about it certainly. c-span: in your 34 years plus

over there how many different offices were you in? >> guest: well, i was in one, two, three, four co. c-span: you moved according to seniority? >> guest: no, well yes and no. i first started in the office that i am occupying right now which is a beautiful spot on the west side of the building and i have a beautiful view of the capital. it is the office as i understand it was thought to be assigned to the retired chief justice and warren burger did use it when he retired that there was no retired chief justice when i joined the court and he'll wanted to keep his chambers. i didn't want to make an issue out of it so i personally moved into it, the location at the front of the court, and then i was able to leave that office and move halfway down the hall when tom clark died. he had chambers in the side of

the court and i went into his chambers for two or three years, and then when palmer stewart retired i moved into his chambers on the corner which is a beautiful office and i stayed there until they did this serious redecoration three or four years ago in which all sorts of changes in the courtroom mate and one that the justices chambers remodeled the justice had to take temporary orders elsewhere. when they remodeled my chambers, and moved into justice o'connor's chambers and i like them so i just stayed there. and then i was there until i retired. c-span: i did it quickly before he started here, that you served with 19 of the 112 justices over the years. yeah and i don't know if this is the kind of question you want to answer but who over those years were you the closest to personally? >> guest: you know it's interesting. i should have an answer to that question and i have been thinking about it lately. i was very fond of iran white.

i was fond of all of them but then i said you know, i felt very strongly about louis powell and potter stewart and bill brennan and thurgood marshall. harry blackmun. we were all friends and david when he came on, it's really difficult to elevate one over the other. c-span: you talk about sitting on the bench next to you as you say, need no, antonin scalia and there was one point where i don't know whether i can get my notes are not, where, here it is. he leaned over to you in the middle of an argument and said, must be defendant day. defendant day. how often did you whisper those words to each other? >> guest: he is a delightful guy. a wonderful sense of humor and

you know he is very very brilliant so he comes up with this on very short notice and on more than one occasion when i was very happy to be the anna fisher a of one or more of his remarks. i can't overstate how clever a person he is. c-span: who here is your fifth chief justice, john roberts. >> justice brandeis once said he could do a 12 months worth of work at the court in 10 months. but he couldn't do it in 12 months. it is good that we get something of a break from each other. we have work that we continue to do. we continue to pour through 9000 petitions that come in. you can't put those off to the fall. yet to keep up with us. we get emergency matters from time to time but we do get out of washington. the work lord is significantly reduced. we get to spend a little more time with the family than was the case, that is always the case during the --

c-span: you said about bill rehnquist to call them bill and he didn't. >> guest: we call them cheap. c-span: what is the relationship. you are considerably older than john roberts. what happens when a young man comes into the court? >> guest: i call them cheap. ike feel more comfortable calling him chief. it wouldn't bother him the slightest if i called him john because we are good friends, but that is one of those traditions and part of the court that sticks with me. c-span: what has been his impact on the court? how is the affected the operation itself? >> guest: he is continue to do a very fine job and handling the conference is. he is an excellent presiding officer. i think he would may well be -- may well be, couldn't evaluate

warren in that regard because i know he was very highly-regarded the way he handled public affairs too but john is an excellent presiding officer. he is particularly good also in public affairs, where he might have to be talking to a group of judges from a foreign country are paying a visit to the court or something and explaining what is going on. he always would have something interesting to say about the history of the court that they could understand and appreciate. he is a very attractive person. c-span: so, what if all the 112 over the years, let's pick on the one that you didn't serve with. who would you have liked to have known? >> guest: well that is a wonderful question. i guess the one, the three that, as immediately to mind are the

three that i regarded as heroes when i was a law student. cordozo and brandeis and holmes. c-span: brandeis was the first jewish member of the court? >> guest: yes, i think that's right. c-span: because now i believe there is something like, are there six catholics and three jewish on the court now, now that you have gone. does it matter when people look at the court from the outside and they see that? does that make a difference as to how people make decisions? >> guest: i don't think it does. i don't think it makes a difference at all although at one time, it was thought to be important. i mean there was considered to be a jewish seat on the court for a wild and i guess, i don't know whether it was steve or ruth now but in any event, and i guess i am the last wasp.

and when i first came on the court of course, most of the court over the years has been protestant and white anglo-saxon so that his jury of. but i don't think he makes an article that difference. it really is totally irrelevant in the discussions and there may be an occasion when a religious holiday is given particular significance by a member of the court but other than that it's totally irrelevant to the decisional process. c-span: how did you do this book? >> guest: i did at the same way i write opinions. i had ideas and i would write them out and i would do one and then when i got to a certain point i asked my law clerk to read it over and make suggestions. i got excellent suggestions as

we went along and as i think i may have mentioned my agent suggested the chapter about the earlier chiefs, but i wrote most of it at home, some of it in the office. c-span: i am sure over the years you have read media copy on the way you have made your decisions and whether or not jerry ford was happy with your political positions on the different issues. the question isn't that so much as did did you u.n. president ford ever talk about that in private? >> guest: no, no, never either before i was appointed or after i was appointed. he did write me a letter that i am very proud of that i have got on my ball which generally indicates agreement with the judicial work but i don't remember ever discussing any legal issue with him. c-span. c-span: what is the thing you want people most of all to take away from this? >> guest: from the book?

..

this week on q&a a professor of economics and a filmmaker team up to make videos explaining economic philosophy. our guests are russ roberts who

teaches at george mason university and john papla former creative director at >> tv. c-span: russ roberts, when did you decide to teach economics and rap? >> guest: when i was about 12-years-old i thought those of every young boys dream of that? i got contacted by john papla out of the blue he listened to my podcast and said let's do a video to get her. i thought a great idea. i don't have time for that. you love the work to get us started and will pay attention to you. he turned out to be in extremely in defeat persistent person. we started off with the idea doing teaching of some aspect of economics and important to a more rap video cams and hayak. c-span: i noticed on youtube this morning, john, the 2,281,000 views of the first video you did which was the first one?

>> guest: fear of the room and a bust. c-span: it got a lot hits, 2 million some? >> guest: it's not as much as comic videos about cast the that is a high bar, and as far as the views about economics, pretty good. and i think perhaps the most interesting, like that video camera over a year ago it's gotten consistently call long after the sort of burst pop 3,000 use a day every day by day in and day out which is amazing to me at that level. c-span: we are going to look mostly today at the second video. what's that called? >> guest: the fight of the century. c-span: what's the basis? >> guest: we wanted to look at what the the stimulus package had worked. we wanted to go back in history and looked at health keynes in hijacked and how to get a set of recessions will to focus on that. c-span: how did you approach this one differently than the first one?

>> guest: i think we wanted to make it sort of bigger and better in every way from a, you know, visual and audio way. so the song i think is a much bigger, bolder song. it's got a song refrain by richard murphy, eddie murphy's brother, and i think the other thing, too, is this in a lot of ways is complementary to the fear of the boom and bust where fear the boom and bust was a sort of your medical textbook macrojargon in this video was much more sort of the political economy, and sort of the applied theory. so they are really talking about how do these things impact the real world he's got to talk about the depression, you've got to talk about the incentives of politicians in deficit spending. c-span: let's watch the first minute or so of this and then you can dissected. >> ward keynes it's such an honor. >> indeed, sir.

>> just go. go right through. >> identification please. hayek? >> hayek. like high explosives. >> we have a 10-66. i repeat it in-66. >> copy that. >> that was just an example of how to pronounce my name. c-span: but we watching? what was that seem? >> guest: succumbing you know, one of the things we try to do with this one which mirrors the first is sort of set up the context of the two personalities. we are making a little dig at the tsa, too, which is always fun. it's good for viral views, which is that keynes is a big figure

in the world of politics, in the world of economics as it's been taught in the mainstream and people know his name. people no stimulus. people -- it's part of the vernacular. whereas hayek come you can come across incredibly accomplished economists who don't really know much about hayek. so he's very much an underdog in terms of the rhetoric. and he won a nobel prize for his business cycle theory so it's not like he's a completely heterodox figure, but we wanted to sort of set table. this is the sort of landscape rhetorically and culturally. c-span: where were they checking into? >> guest: this is the beginning of a senate hearing or against a congressional hearing more and general we don't sort of distinguished. so they are on their way in to testify on behalf of the role of government spending in the economy and that's the security checkpoint at the entrance. c-span: who is john maynard keynes? >> guest: john maynard keynes

is probably the most influential economist of the 20th century although hayek is in the running. he's just not as loud and brash but he's the reason 30 is reused justification for a lot of government spending and dominated macroeconomic business cycle furies, theories of recession, depression for roughly 40 years until the 70's when things somehow went awry, the so-called phillips curve, the relation between inflation and employment wasn't holding the models that he the fever and 80s and 90s in the academy among academic economists. but they come in a big recession come he's back in favor again because he gives people an excuse to spend money in the name of saving things. so he is a huge figure. he had an outsize personality. we use his charm as part of the femur and the videos because he was a very charismatic man and very attractive to all kinds of folks who wanted to be around him. so we make canada more popular guy in the videos and hayek as always struggling for respect.

c-span: that's what some are. >> ladies and gentlemen, members of congress, we are here today to consider the impact of government spending on our economy. we are fortunate to have to world renowned economists to offer their testimony on the matter. >> i seem to be deutsch were down the road to serfdom. >> talk about the end of laissez-faire. >> welcome shake off, friday. i'm not pulling any punches in there. i'm ready. are you? >> prepare for the return of the minister. >> john maynard keynes. hayek. around two. around 2.0. some economists. same beliefs. to microphones. new mustaches.

c-span: john, what are we seeing -- right there on the screen who are those characters supposed to be in real life? >> guest: well, in real life the gentleman with the beard is a certain federal chairmen. a stylized chairman mao. i will leave it to the audience. and it's also my dad. c-span: that is your dad? [laughter] >> guest: yes. c-span: how about the other fellow? >> guest: then sort of he's surrounded by people who represent essentially i guess you could say like broker-dealers, the actual big money center banks that the fed interacts with that sort of have an odd relationship with this government agency where they both sit on its board, but then also buy and sell securities with and sometimes try to be a return to it when they get into a pinch. c-span: who is the fellow sitting on the right of ben

bernanke? there is a point at which somebody thought was mr. mr. geithner the treasury secretary. >> guest: know, it's not. there's sort of -- there's no one in particular. so yes, there's no name associated with that particular region, and in the real world. c-span: russ roberts, what are you trying to accomplish? >> guest: with the video? c-span: yes. >> guest: we are trying to get people to understanding of one of the economic argument between these two people, the argument of what we call the top down approach to recovery which is the keynesian approach versus the bottom-up approach of hayek. most people just presume that if you spend money, you create jobs and we argue that didn't happen in the past. when we stopped spending money at the end of world war ii jobs didn't disappear. in fact the cony did very well. we argue there is not a lot of evidence for the keynesian model, and we are you really that the whole idea of macroeconomics isn't as sensitive as economists like to pretend it is.

hayek in 1974 when he got the nobel prize for a very powerful piece called the pretense of knowledge. he uses those lyrics and his salt, and our son, where he says the economy is not a classic investor in college and think of it otherwise is pretense to knowledge. we argue that economics often act as if economics is a precise science. we are going to create 37,582 jobs were this is going to cost 16,455 jobs. that's fake science. the use of scientific technology and jargon to give an aura of certainty that doesn't really exist. so was oracle to get people to think about both sides of this question with a stimulus to the government spending actually is the road to prosperity. and secondly, to get a little skeptical about the scientific nature of economics which hayek was a major skeptic about. c-span: who wrote the song? >> guest: it was us together. i mean it really was. it's one of the most exciting things about this project is that, like, as russ said and reached out to him as a lesson of econ talk so i was trying to

educate myself about economics having never studied it formally but russ has also written fictional books and is a very just creative person, so sort of it's a very unlikely balance of sort of really dumb the middle fifties 50 writing the lyrics together, bringing ideas to the table and then bringing ideas to the table visually. it's a great collaboration and friendship, and that's what it's all about for us. c-span: you live in new york. >> guest: in new jersey for now. c-span: close. you live in -- >> guest: maryland. morgan virginia. c-span: how did you get to know each other and from what perch were you on when you got to know each other? >> guest: we spent a lot of time on the phone and a lot of time even leaving each other before we ever met face-to-face. we wrote i think to songs before we actually met face-to-face. we wrote a preliminary some that didn't meet. we decided to reject before we vote fear the boom and bust.

we didn't write the music by the way. the music was written by richard jacobsen was a great composer of the lyrics for john and point c-span: what are you doing and how did you get to know russ roberts? >> guest: welcome up until recently, i was full time as a creative director of the broadcast cable network. c-span: which one? >> guest: spike tv, which does not endorse nor is to see it directly with our work. where i have a lot of great support from my colleagues there. it's a great organization. it's a great group of people. as essentially a combination of the election cycle in 2007-2008, and then the financial crisis really with bear stearns, just sparked my interest in these ideas in economics. i was very inspired by the ron paul campaign in dillinger he was talking about, how many people talk about monetary policy in a political setting other than him. nobody. now it is it the fact that it happened. the fact that you had this lone voice talking about the role of money and monetary policy in the economy followed by the crash

and this sudden, when we had been bernanke pure for the first time in 90 years to give a press conference and that struck me as there's a story here that isn't being told as a media person, as a creative person, i think i have the tools to to live in a different way and so that is why i reached out to russ. c-span: musette econ talk is the leading you got to know that he existed. what is econ talk? >> guest: is a weekly podcast where interview economists, authors, the woman who cut my wife's hair, the guy who sold me my car or nobel prize winners. it's an hour-long conversation on economic issues of the day. c-span: where do you do it? >> guest: i do it out of my office of george mason, but it's a liberty fund product. to confide that the web at econ talk eldora. it comes out every week about 6:30 a.m. monday morning. there's about 250 or so on the

web. c-span: it is a podcast? how do you fight? >> guest: you can find it, itunes or you can do guinn. good to itunes and search for econtalk. c-span: what did you do before spike tv? >> guest: i have been essentially a member of the viacom family for my whole career. i got out of school it started off the bottom rung is a production assistant at mtv in the animation group. and then i worked for nickelodeon, which is where i met my wife and also where i met my boss then they and then boss and friends neils at spike. so when he looked nickelodeon to go to spike i said to be with you. that sounds exciting. he said all right, come abroad than the first seven years or until this april we are left to start a new venture. i was at spike. c-span: the first video was

actually released one? >> guest: key not in the end of january, 2010. c-span: and that's the one that has 2,000 -- 2 million hits coming and the other one that we've been watching has about 700-something thousand today. let's watch a little bit of the rap did you put together. >> que we are peace out. great recession thinks to me. as you see we are not in a depression. recovery destiny if you follow my lesson. lord keynes here i come lineup for the procession. we brought up shovels but we are still in a ditch and still digging. don't you think it's time for a switch from the hair of the dog, from the party is over. the long run this year. it's time to get sober. >> are you kidding? like your works perfectly fine. have a look, the great recession ended backend 09. i deserve credit. things could have been worse. all the estimates prove that i will quote chapter and verse. >> econ genex, the hour supiness. they're doing real science or confirming their bias? the models are tidy and neat but that topped approach is a fatal conceit.

>> which we should we choose? more bottom-up or bottom down? the fight continues. keynes and hayek second round. c-span: i have to ask you who is the chairman there to the african-american gentleman, who is he supposed to be in congress? anybody in congress? >> guest: rich murphy who is also coming is a great singer and richard jacobs, the composer. when we decided we wanted to bring different elements to the song and to break up the route with symbol model melodics richard recommended rich and that's how it came about. c-span: for the two actors that are of front? >> guest: disability and adam, so they are the improv canadians. they also have a really hilarious group called the harvard sailing team. my wife lisa actually found them. she -- i met her when i was at nickelodeon, so she is also a to

be professional. we have tried a couple of, i guess up-and-coming rappers in the early stages of developing fear the boom and bust and it just it wasn't quite fitting, you know? is in all the project and you sort of need to commit to it and just take the time to get the intonation is right and the sense of what it is. i turned to my wife who can find anything and she's like a mega producer. i said we need basically two guys that look somewhat like keynes and hayek that can come believe rap and she found them in like a week. c-span: how old are they? >> they are in their late 20s. i think really pretty sure. they are just amazing people. they are incredible, hard-working professionals and just a great human beings. they're awesome. c-span: russ roberts, tells more about the two characters that they are playing, frederick von

hayek was from what country? when did he live, what were the basics that he stood for? >> guest: so hayek was born in 1899, sees the 19th century by any sort of kind of a sense, born in austria, in suspending important time in the early part of his career in england where he meets keynes and keynes to re become friends which we bring out the missile the respectful of each other, they are friends, they argue. i see the post cards they wrote to each other. i touched them out of the hoover institution, stanford where i also have an appointment that a lot of hayek's stuff and the of the postcards back and forth. the call each other keynes hayek by the way, for names. we have keynes and keynes callim freddie for fun because he's british. so hayek also spends time in the latest date. he answered in the university of chicago for a while, not in the economics department. so he had an incredible career

spanning a huge part of the 20th century. he died in 1992. she was important for a whole bunch of reasons. the road to serfdom is the but most people think of. it's not the book i recommend. i prefer the fatal conceit. it's more about economics and politics is what he wrote about. he would about politics, economics, and and some incredible worth of knowledge and interest and have an impact on economics very much so in the 30's and 40's it was kind of a forgotten figure, gets the nobel prize in the 70's and really has a rebirth that we are trying to encourage. we think his ideas are very important and must be the coastal today. c-span: didn't you graduate from the university of chicago? >> guest: i did. i'm a university of chicago ph.d.. c-span: did you ever meet him? >> guest: i did not. again, he is a quiet figure. he was not an important figure in the department. i was required to read one of his most famous articles, the use of knowledge in society, which he wrote in 1945. it used to be of a graduate student reading lists, probably is not much anymore but still a

very important and influential, incredibly important paper about how the prices signal and steer information in the modern economy. c-span: where was john maynard keynes educated? >> guest: he's a british economist. i want is a unit to -- >> guest: king's college kimber gereed. >> guest: cambridge, does come in and of course his young career, he was most famous for "the economic consequences of peace," where he said that the oversight treaty of the end of world war i was going to lead to disaster. he was right. the very thing that made his reputation. he also written for which the books on probability, monetary theory, this joint work cannot in 1936, "the general feeling of income," john knows this better than i do. "income, money and employment"? >> guest: interest, employment and money. >> guest: c-span: when did he live? >> guest: keynes dhaka in college on, you're going to help

the year to late 40's? >> guest: i think 46. >> guest: 46. i feel so. there is a poignant correspondence between keynes and hayek at the end of his life with you worry that inflation and he set no don't worry i will know that in the bud and allow police supporters that it's time to stop he dies. he gets this sort of post war era, 50s, 60s, starting this inflationary growth happens that ends up with of the stagflation of the 70's. i'm a little worried we are about to get another dose of that year and 2010, we will see. c-span: your education? >> guest: yes, like i said, i actually just have an undergraduate the film and tv from penn state. c-span: but no, the reason i asked was there was no economics? >> guest: none. c-span: is that in the vantage? >> guest: i sort of think it's a mental the what is interesting because there's so much. there is a lot of allure in economics. and to give you a small since it to understand the world and it's very easy for meter perspective, from the free market or in more

interventionist perspective, to say i've got it all in my head. it's a system and this is how it works, and so it is a challenge to sort of stay humble about your understanding. the more you get into it, the more you read that part of why, that's really part of what attracted me to russ russ' podco much that he not only does he treat his guests with him, i think that both of us would often disagree intellectually with a lot of respect and dignity, but he also approach as his own biases or his own point of view with a lot of even skepticism that there's only so, and that is a very high yaki -- hayekian point in the video that there are what this points to know it to be wary of your certainty with regard to the economy. c-span: which one of these economists, hayek or keynes, is dominating the fall in the

united states today? >> guest: i guess it depends on how you look at it. i would have to say it's still very much keynes although it to people who are adamant fans of his would say hayek. i mean, the fact that we are approaching -- we've hit this debt ceiling, which is kind of strange arbitrarily, and it's like the world is going to come crashing down. how could we not spend more money? how could we possibly imagine balancing the budget? so there is a keynesian pious that sort of natural to government. just even more generally, every time christmas rolls around and people talk about how important christmas spending is going to be for the economy, that our economy is built on consumption. that is a bazaar, from my point of view, it's a bizarre idea to think about that consuming well as recreate it. it's weird. c-span: was the biggest difference between keynesian and a hayekian? >> guest: well, what we've been talking about right now, we decided to spend 800 it turned out to be about 820 billion that

we borrowed. we have ratcheted up government spending dramatically in the hopes of creating jobs. the keynesian is will tell you that we didn't spend enough. that's why it didn't work better. c-span: what would have been enough? >> guest: well, paul krugman said to petroleum have been a good number. there's no worry in his mind about the implications of that for people's confidence in the future fees and how your taxes. the keynesian tend to be looking more at the short run, the hayekian tend to be looking more at the long run. part of hayek we haven't talked about that's so important is the political incentives. hayek cindy love of time worrying about who response to the incentives, whose strong to the power, what happens to them once they get in power. the plans of politicians really don't always end up of the economics department drawing board. the tend to respond to the political and incentives, so i think that's is a hugely important difference. hayek emphasized that and politically powerful get the

goods. people who don't have political power don't get the goods. c-span: platts watch samore but before we do that, how long is this video in its entirety? >> guest: if you include the credits, it's just over ten minutes. c-span: some more music. ♪ it's time to weigh in more from the top or from the ground. let's listen to the rates. keynes hayek throwing down. >> we could have done better and had we only spend more. too bad that only happens when there is a world war. you can talk all you want about stats and repression. do you deny world war ii and cut short the depression? >> wow. one day the plate and you're jumping for joy. the last time i checked war and the district. there was a multiplier, consumption just shrink as we used scarce resources for every new tank. pretty prefers to call that prosperity. rationed meat, rationed water, a

life of austerity. when that war spending in the coming your friends cried disaster yet the economy thrived and crew faster. c-span: where did you do all this? >> guest: the film with the entirety of the city with inter-university in madison, new jersey. they had, this is just part of the, film making is a lot like a giant construction job. you've got to hire the right crew. you've got to scott your location and find the right path, which in this case drew offered a nice big auditorium where we could stage that boxing scene and then this beautiful, i don't think it was quite a chapel, but it had a kind of trouble-like feel to it. but that wasn't really the point. it was the sort of nice mahogany classic environment where we could have our sort of timeless congressional hearing. c-span: when did you do it? >> guest: we did it on -- too long days. april 16th and 17th. so over the weekend and then my partner, joshua mika mitchell chen and unbelievable edit

already done two days after. we really got very excited about it. we couldn't go to sleep. once we had it in the can, we had to get to work. subject leedy deily ten days after we were done shooting. c-span: how much did it cost you? >> guest: welcome it should have cost about a quarter of a million dollars. it did not cost that. and wasn't dramatically below that, but we pulled a lot of favors and didn't take very much money on it or anything like that. but from a production value, how do you do that? how do you produce that? 222 injured 50,000 is about right. c-span: where did you get the money? >> guest: we raised the money from people who were excited about the project. we have a website, econstroies.tv we have the videos, the lyrics, you can download it's all free by the way. you can get the songs and we have a material of their fuel to learn more about keynes and

hayek. psas, podcast, other videos, videos we've done with other scholars, larry white of george mason and robert skill skee, the biographer, as you can watch out to the videos there. basically we went out and reached out to people who we thought would be passionate about this kind of economics project, and it had a great appeal to the high school and college audience by the way. a lot of people who watched it in high schools and a lot of people are excited about learning about good economics of the high school and college level. some of my blog, cafe hayek, and a protest that he could donate to there and we went out and raise money. swibel came from private donors who are passionate about economic education. c-span: i trust that you are a big hayek fall were? >> guest: i am. we like hayek by the way. we try to give cannes his due. we tried to be faithful and honest to his viewpoint. he looks better. he has all kind of plus is going for him but we actually like hayek. c-span: when did you start that?

>> guest: interesting hayek? >> guest: c-span: yes. >> guest: it goes back a long way. i have some interest in him graduate school back in the 70's but coming into george mason, which was a strong interest in australian economics, the chairman of the department when i got there was don pardo, who is an enormous hayek fan. he turned me on to a lot of hayek's essays and books. my last book, quote with the price of everything comes top quote is really an attempt to bring keynes's ideas about microeconomics into a fictional context. smd de hayek. c-span: ♪ >> you can only see when you to see. the spending on war clearly boosted gdp. unemployment was overcome almost don't zero. that's why the master, that's why the hero. >> creating unemployment is a straightforward craft. when the nation is at war, there is a draft, if every worker was stuffed in the army and fleet will have full employment and nothing to eat. >> which we should we choose? more bottom-up or bottom down?

had the fight continues. keynes and hayek's second round. it's time to bring in. more from the top or from the ground, let's listen to the greats. keynes in hayek throwing down. >> jobs are a means, not the ends in themselves. people work to live better. to put food on the shelves. real growth in its production of what people do it. that's entrepreneurship, not your central plan. >> my solution is simple and easy to handle, its spending that matters, one is that such a scandal? money sloshing through the pipes and thus loses, revitalizing the economy juices. it's like an engine that stalled in the column are permitted to bring it to life, we need a quick start of spending is the lifeblood that gets the flow going. where it goes doesn't matter, just get spending following. >> you see slack in some sectors as a general glut. but some sectors are healthy, only some in a rut. suspending slot free -- that's the heart of the matter. too much waste as cronies get

fatter. c-span: so what is the subtlety say on the back -- >> guest: so this is my proudest contribution to the econ of the video. jean-baptiste say and thomas malthus essentially a version of the keynes/hayek debate a hundred years before hayek and hayek, which is also part of what we call it the height of the century. its flight of this increase back and forward. it's not going to stop and it didn't start with them. we are basically, the debate went to malthus believed that you could have a general glut of goods, there could be overproduction, and that insufficiently essentially spending competition demand for goods in general could cause -- the was the cause of recession. that's what the recession was. and to say on the other side that's not the nature of

prosperity and the source of our purchasing power. the first half to produce something that someone else wants and only through that process you have the means to purchase of the things. >> so i have to go to my job and make money so that i can go and buy a house or buy a car. that gets reinterpreted in a very strange way as a supply creates its own demand, which sounds like you can go in your backyard and a mud pie and medically someone will appear to buy it. that's not what say was talking about. he was saying that production, which is fairly -- and you think about it is the sense of your purchasing power. you have to be productive to be able to buy things and that if spending in one year urea collapses because people made some mistakes, but capital and that interest will flow into other areas and so you would have shifting sectors. so that was something i really cared a lot about in this and i wanted to make sure i got in the video and russ and i debated like is it too much, is it to

geeky, how important is it? c-span: did anybody to give it out in a blog somewhere what exactly you were doing and analyze this? >> guest: sure colin yes. we've got mises who was hayek's great teacher and hicks in cannes corner. so the low decorah npv we are hoping we were going to film them in between rounds feeding them articles and books to read. we were not quite able to get that in, but we wanted to make a little tip of the hat to the intellectual influences. c-span: who do you -- when you are writing this kind of stuff, who do you think of as the viewer? >> guest: we are trying to reach people who are interested in how the world works. that's everybody from a high school student who was curious about economics to a person who is just trying to make a living and get along and is worried about what's going on in washington or in the country. we tried to meet these lyrics accessible, a little bit amusing. i have to admit, i actually

enjoy listening to it still. it's a little bit weird. i'm not a rap fan, but i am getting into it now view it i get e-mails from grumet souci i watched this with my kid. i am into rap now. my kid isn't economics. it was part of our goal, to reach people. i had a woman right to me that her fourth grader watched it and liked it. i had a guy tell me that his fifth grader has mastered all of the lyrics and had a friend over and was showing it to his friend. he said to you know anything about austrian economics? this the sweet spot for us, to get kids, ten is a little young lady, but to get kids in high school and college and curious people everywhere to find out more about these ideas, is really why we did this and that's very gratifying. c-span: how did you test it to see if people understood it? >> guest: we didn't. yes, i'm sort of in the steve tawes school of you don't focus

groups. the creative process is just so, it's challenging and it's very, very subjective and it's a collaborative and there's already so many collaborators involved. russ and myself and joshua edited and shot parts of it and the cinematographer, and there's so many compromises of the logistics of it. it rains and you can't get the shot he wanted to get so you have to rethink the way it has to happen. >> guest: or it snows and you're hoping you're going to get a rolls-royce limo in the first movie, but there are who owns it won't let it of the garage of a snow day. c-span: the first when you did was in new york and snow. >> guest: yes, 20 inches the day before we shot it, so it almost never happened. c-span: now is there any money being made on showing this on youtube? >> guest: no, not now. >> guest: there's some ads that run on it, but it is a pittance. it's nothing. c-span: be almost a two-minute clip of the discussion of the

wall street bailout from government oversight and it shows hayek gives keynes a big punch and keynes goes down. why the boxing think? what's the -- how did you set that up? >> guest: well, when fear the boom and bust has this pretty strong metaphor, the drinking. c-span: you're first video? >> guest: the first video has like a sort of drinking and the party and then hang over the day after. this piece, what we were really trying to adjust establishes that this fight in this debate and this intellectual battle was timeless. so that's why we have say and mises, and that's why it has a stylistically look is sort of this golden nostalgic feel, even in a senate hearing which is theoretically modern day, but i hope that that modern day 30 years from now that people watch it and say when he says the recession ended backend 09 come is the equivalent of someone saying the depression and the the second 33 like some believe.

so that was it. it was really a motif. it was just kind of a broad playground for us to have these ideas happen. >> guest: and the chance to have the chair of the hearing be there every of the boxing match, we were deeply attracted to that. that gave us the chance to make a little joke of the end about what role politicians play in deciding who's got the best arguments and that was fun. >> guest: but what of it john really wanted to shoot a boxing scene. >> guest: was a lot of fun. c-span: again, if somebody's watching and they want to watch both of these videos in their entirety, where do they go? >> guest: they can go to econstroies.tv or they can go to youtube. if you google keynes rap, hayek rap come keynes and hayek -- in fact i don't know if i should be apologetic about this if you google keynes our first video comes up on the first page. that's his little bit of his legacy now, for better or for worse. c-span: to videos, youtube or

econstroies.tv. all right. cheers to more minutes. ♪ the economy is not a car. there's no engine to stall. no expert can fix it, there is no eight at all. the economy is us, we don't need a mechanic. but with a vengeance. the kennedy is organic. which we should we choose? more bottom-up or more top-down? the fight continues. keynes and hayek's second round. it's time to weigh in. more from the top or from the ground. let's listen to the greeks. keynes and hayek throwing down. >> so what would you do to help those unemployed? this is the question you seem to avoid. when we are in ns, we do have as just wait? doing nothing until markets' equilibrium? i don't want to do nothing, there's plenty to do. the question i ponder is who plans for whom? to my plan for myself or leave it to you? i want plans by the many, not by the few. let's not repeat what created

our troubles. i knew what real growth, not a series of bubbles. stop dillinger losers, let prices work. if we don't try to steer them they won't go berserk. come on are you kidding? don't wall street's gyrations challenge your world view of self regulation? evin you must admit that the lesson we've learned is more oversight needed or else we will get burned. oversight? the governments of long been in bed with those wall street executives and the firms they've been bled. capitalism is a profit and loss coming to be about the losers, there's no end to the cost. the lesson i've learned? it's how little we know. the world is complex, not some circular flow. the economy is the classic investor in college. to think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge. >> which we should we choose? more bottom-up or more top-down? the fight continues. keynes and hayek second round. c-span: where do to get the actors and the, not the two actors, the main ones, but all the extras?

>> guest: the same place. i turned to lisa who knows how to get things done. so, what we did is actually come at this point, we've already had a decent following from our first video, and we reached out to essentially our fans on facebook and on the internet and my wife coordinated dissention the people that are into what we are doing and wanted to be a part of it to come and participate, so there's a lot -- it's not just a corporate backer of extras hired. c-span: the two names, i wrote them down, billy is it scafuri? >> guest: that's right. c-span: and the effort is adam lustick. you say they are not 30 it? >> guest: no. c-span: where did they learn how to dance? [laughter] >> guest: they've lived rich lives so far. you know what, they actually do comic rap on their own, so they've got enough problems already held with hilarious parody rap psalms. so they've been doing and what went to this, but this kind of

thing life for some time. c-span: when did you get interested, russ roberts come in the new technologies, the podcast and things like that? and how did you know that was going to have any impact all? >> guest: i remember when my, someone said to me, you know, you ought to have a blog and i thought i don't know about that. so i didn't do that for a while and then all of a sudden i realized yes, i should have a lot. the would-be country and i was late to blogging and i thought when i heard about podcast and someone invited me to be a guest on a podcast and i thought i'm not going to get this. so i jumped into broadcasting in 2006 with econtalk and i have been doing it for five years. when i started, people said well, no one is going to want to listen to people talk about economics for an hour. five minutes is a long time and the radio. there is a taste in demand out there for serious conversation of serious learning. it's not textbook. it's not classroom, so it's not a lecture. but it's more of the conversation. i think that's the way we've hard wired actually to learn is by talking and listening.

so what i try to create for our listeners, to ask the questions they ask and some technology, there was an obvious thing. i noticed that people were not reading as much as they used to come as a radio, podcast and seemed like a good idea. obviously the big prize was always video, and so i'm thrilled the light had the chance to collaborate with john, who has such an incredible visual legislation and the knowledge of economics to go with it because the deal was very time consuming and as we both know. we spent a lot of time on this project. it's a blessing to do with somebody who understands what i am to stand and has the same goals as i do. i think is in the modern era, i think about what it would have been like in 1995, the dark ages, that about, this is 15, 16 years ago if we had come up with this idea. we would have created adc, which have been a modern things. how will we have reached people with that? well, we would have got a mailing list, we would have gone out there to get people to ask for it or buy it.

here we can get away for free. we have now about 3 million views of the videos that we've created combined. they've been subtitled in 11 languages. what an incredible but we live in where you can come anywhere in the world get access to this entertainment, these ideas in the format you what, what did sprint, audio or visual. c-span: i saw on youtube these two actors in front of an economist seminar of some kind. do you take this on the road now? >> guest: we did. >> guest: which is really bizarre we it was the economist magazine. they have this annual conference, the buttonwood gathering. they saw it as an opportunity to lighten things up. it's a tough crowd. [laughter] brian michaelene didn't laugh as much as you had expected? >> guest: no, i think that irving king might have been our biggest fan of the crowd, i have to say. >> joe stieglitz was there. >> guest: yes and so it was in a illustrious crowd which made

it even weirder for me, who has no reason to be listened to, to get onstage with russ. at that session we had adams saying we wrote lyrics for the old psalm which became the jumpstart for the next song. we realized we have another song almost already written to read and in the that of course not being true. we killed some verses and of the bunch more but recalled that the sneakquel to read it was like this week preview of the next one. c-span: here's the last section of this music, a particular music video. this is about two minutes. ♪ >> it's time to weigh in. more from the top up or from the ground? let's listen to the greeks. keynes hayek scriven down. >> you get on your high horses and you're off to the races. i look at the world on a case by case basis. when people are suffering i rolled up my sleeves and do what i can to cure our disease.

the future is uncertain, our outlooks are for real. that is why free-market are so prone to feel. in a volatile world we need more discretion, state intervention can counter depression. some people aren't just then you move on the board of your wim, their dreams and desires ignored. with political incentives, discretion is a joke. those titles you're testing just mirrors and smoke. we need stable rules and a real market prices of prosperity mergers and cuts short the crisis. give us the chance we can discover the most valuable ways to serve one another. >> which way should we choose? more bottom-up or more top-down? the fight continues keynes hayek second round it's time to weigh in. more from the top or from the ground? let's listen to the greeks. keynes in hayek throwing them.

[applause] which way should we choose? more top or from the ground? let's listen to the great, keynes and hayek from now. it's time to weigh in. which we should we choose? more bottom-up or top-down the fight continues let's listen to the greeks great. keynes hayek throwing them. bernanke said there was your sister holding a microphone? >> guest: that's right. i got my sister in earlier just in the crowd and my mom as well so it was a family affair. c-span: where is your mom and the video? >> guest: she's nodding her head in the crowd and some of the earlier shots. c-span: is it lip-synched? >> guest: that's right you play back the solomon said and they sing along to make sure

that it's synchronized with the picture, but in order for the performance to work they do have to sing it there because if you just sort of now become our eyes are so attuned to the subtle changes in that case that come from singing verses not and so they have to build it out and really performing blight multiple times again and again over the course of the day. c-span: so if you're there in the room as it's being done to you from this or take it? >> guest: we filmed it only is brand new so the cameras, you can shoot a hollywood movie of these cameras. the beautiful cameras. >> guest: that's right. c-span: your note you mentioned earlier, interesting about this session with you both is that there are two stories here. one is the making of the video and theater is the economics of it. connect something that you said very early in our discussion about how the liberty fund based in indianapolis. >> guest: yes, they are a foundation. c-span: and i looked on their board illegally recognize, not that i should recognize anybody come legally recognize one name and that's mary anastasia, it

sure we pronounce this, o'grady of the wall street editorial board. for those folks and what is that fund? >> guest: it was greeted by an indianapolis businessman, mr. goodrich. he was interested in the great books. he was interested in dialogue. he was interested in education. celebrities and as a few things. the published reports of economics. a lot of the, adam smith, the best works of items with another to the hour liberties editions that they've done in collaboration with academic press and other great books like that. the run conferences for scholars who sit around and talk about ideas and then they have a web page, econlib, the library of economics and the liberty and the only luxury of liberty where the archive great works of economics. so my podcast is there. there's a blog, econlib, which is a top-10 economics blog. we have all kinds of, among the allies report, we have all kinds

of great works of economics. we have karl marx. we have some john maynard keynes and we have some adam smith. we have the entire works of david ricardo, which are not easy reading and i don't recommend that lightly. it's an enormous resource that's all no charge for anybody read the bald who has access to the internet. c-span: where does liberties and get its money? >> guest: they get it from pierrick and rich. c-span: all of the leaves from him? >> guest: as far as i know. it's his and endowment. its and endowment that's grover time to read the don't raise money. we don't charge for anything. people have written me saying i love your podcast can give you money? liberty fund sources the probably take it but they don't really raise money. volume accounted you educate yourself about economics? >> guest: well, russ' podcast played a role and then also just reading books although the really audio books because i get sick on the bus. i have a long commute. c-span: how long is your commit? >> guest: it's almost four hours roundtrip.

c-span: every day. >> guest: yes, he's really smart. >> guest: the duty of public transit in the new york city area. c-span: and how would you go from where to wear every day? >> guest: i would go from vernon, new jersey to manhattan, and i listened to a lot of marie rauf bird and i read some textbooks which is weird. i watched an intro economics class on that that was free from esen estimate of even know what school that is, but was pretty interesting. i wanted to see sort of what normally taught and i'm glad i didn't have to sit through that for real. c-span: we have a clip of the first video unit which was already almost a year 8 million dues and let's see it was released last april in 2010? >> guest: yes, january 25, 2010. it's like to .3 million viewers, the new one. >> guest: the new -- i'm sorry, yes, the new one. 7 million. it would be my spirit be after this program will get -- >> guest: i hope so. c-span: care about 861st all before you show it, set up with this was about. >> guest: this was really

almost an inch roe perot buzzword festival for the keynesian economics and austrian business cycle theory. so you have keynes stat through the basic framework for his theory and why government spending can restore employment in theory and then hayek goes for his approach and which is very different about the role of monetary policy because money is one side of every transaction so it kind of makes sense that money would have systemwide effects. the way that the credit cycle but the fed creates induces the business cycle and cause is what he calls now investment. c-span: okay. let's watch. it's about a minute and 18 of the first video that you did. >> my general theory is made quite an impression. a revolution. i transformed the econ profession. you know me, modesty, still and taking it out. say it loud and was a proud, we all can see and smell. we've been going back and forth for a century. i want to steal market. i want them set free. there's a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it. i made my case, fred each, that

can you hear it? i'll begin in broad strokes just like my friend, keynes. his theory conceals the mechanics of change. the simple equation, too much recordation ignores human action and motivation. and yet it continues as a justification for bailouts and payoffs by polls with medications. to provide them with covered pacelli free lunch. then all that we are left with its debt and a bunch. if you're living high on that cheap credit hall don't look for a cure from the hair of the dog. real savings comes first if you want to invest. the market coordinates time with interest. your focus on spending is pushing on thread. and the long run, my friend come if your theory that's dead. so sorry their buddy if that sounds like incentive. prepared to get schooled in my austrian perspective. we've been giving back and forth for a century. i want to steer markets. i would then set free. there's a boom and bust cycle and a reason to fear it. bling love interest rates. no, it's the animal spirits. brian mchugh said what freezes

have become well known? >> guest: well, among certain circles prepare to get schooled in like austrian perspective appears on more than one evil signature. c-span: why? >> guest: austrian economics which again is one of the country of austria but it's this lineage of fingers, mises and hayek and rothbart and others, carl menger, just for the most part can from austria. those in the stream before keynes. the to the leggitt to the site site links and so like any group that sort of feels like they are on the outskirts you develop a very loyal following. i mean of baldacci and ethel's mainstream outcome and wasn't always so and a good sign to become a slogan was a lonely for people that feel like they may be getting heard. c-span: i have to confess that when i got into preparing for

the july not to the coup started to drum and all the different website and blogs and all that we talked about earlier about cafe hayek i wanted to ask you what is that? >> guest: that is my blog that i do with don boudreaux. c-span: and your taste of george mason university teaching what level? >> guest: correct. undergraduates and grads. c-span: teaching what course? >> guest: this semester in teaching a seminar on adam smith to both graduates and undergraduates. c-span: did they have to watch your videos? >> guest: know they are all fans. they told me about how it's doing more than i'd final leone. they like it. c-span: and econtalk again what is that? >> guest: that is my weekly podcast it comes, it's sponsored by liberty fund. it comes on every monday morning at six thanks 30 a.m. interviews with economists, authors, everyday people, business leaders. c-span: how many of them or their? >> guest: there's a for to under 50 in the archives.

we keep every one of the lebling. liberty fund is very interested in education so they are up there without any charge. c-span: is there one of them or two of them that have really taken off and where their numbers are bigger than the rest of the years? >> guest: i interviewed milton friedman twice. those are still popular. i interviewed nassim taleb three times. i hope to interview him again. those are very popular but maybe the most popular is like a number of deutsch diversity. he's the security guard and that opening scene of the fight for the century. he and i have a great report. he is a sort of -- he's been all i think 19 times in the program. brian katulis again he is. >> guest: like member is a professor of economics and political science at duke university. his frequent guest on podcast, econtalk and the cast him as the security guard. his the chauffeur in the first one to be tested a fan of the videos. we are buddies and he wanted to be part of it. c-span: what is the most enjoyable part of this for you? >> guest: it's just to have

one thing to really think maybe the most enjoyable part of this is to we are actually having an impact on the world and what i think is a positive way. people are talking about these ideas and the feeling power and as russ said, we've got so much mail, not real meal, with email and facebook messages from people better rediscovering economics in the way the light it through our videos. so to sort of have discovered those ideas in this was are we for myself, the serendipitous sort of set of circumstances and then to people to contribute to the sort of community and the pool of knowledge is just it's amazing. i get sort of emotional thinking about the fact that i'm privileged enough to get to do this. c-span: what's next? >> guest: i don't know. when we did the end of that, we were very, we spent a lot of time thinking about that last 30 seconds and it might be the last time that we see don keynes hayn the screen. and it's funny, we know billion of them personally, a lot to me and probably john the are keynes and hayek and we are saying goodbye to the reallyth