brings in revenue. that is the model. it is not total privatization. the tsa would still be the regulator and it may be that the need for sanionsoulde coctelore ent o >> those airports with private contractors i work harmonious with tmal performance. >> those airports with private contractors i work harmonious with themperformance. >> those airports with private contractors i work harmonious with them and they are in place tionle.ansion of therogram is l s cod tn. securing the homeland and making tsa the most effective agency that it can be along with our pilots and flight attendants who rlthsvenge front lin of a domestically and internationally. >> i think the gentlelady.

we were talking earlier about a group of approved contractors. is there another example of that? we think it should be there but is there when you are trying to model after. ie airport screening are itself canada, last i checked, 12 certified companies that gornme cfi reed tsa following 9/11. it certifies the company's immediate standards. >> does it surprise that the airport >> one thing we had in previous s lrdye private

contractors. the number of tsa personnel supervising is exorbitant. e a?or more tsa people,o you do sr hrdny complaints or criticism about that? >> let me say many of the things we are talking about here i believe and i think tsa would leo under legal b perspective. in terms of supervisors i have heard that criticism but i am iteavrthe it a problem is the way tsa runs this pp it is tsa that is contract

manager and the relationship between tsa and the other ggng artld model i am ct niaonact and manage the relationship if it would regulate the overall airport security. >> tsa wouldn't have personal supervising. >> it wouldn't have the same extent of supeisio it wld bsupervising ar of orae the airports. >> other than canada and the other countries do that? >> almost all the major european airports. policy in europe varies somewhat from count to country but i was not ableo nd ro cntrye.em hheon of regulation and screening provisioning in the same national government entity. the airport does it for private contractors reporting to the airport. >> both you broht upn yope smeon i emasto in' tht hich is term limits

r the administrator. you heard from the ranking member she finds it appealing as well. you meionethi diecto as aexe. iou le nowf are other departments with works like the fbi. >> i mentioned in my statement >> this g m.nisttor, and -- yoadeoi the reason you answered no one i talked about the bloating of bureaucracy that that is what we need and you support him. i have great respect for administrator piol he is xtmely compete fend can r irnc le me ask this way. he does not have a definite term. he works at the pleasure of the

hd tr tm mit srery. or whenever, and then said we need 70% of what we have right lpl,e ated t a more information. would you then -- with the administrator feel would happen for support? >> mr. chairman, i would like to see anvolution tardsore -b sitde >>e mnc the administrator at present serve that the pleasure of the president. this president has a very close relationship with organized labor. they don want to see fellow employees be reduced. even if thedmistrat ft li w 30 eyee t tm go because when he starts letting them go the president

will call him up and go we are not going to go there. my point, likedhe idea that if ty haa rm p c b tth w around. republican president, something of a republican president didn't like. i like the idea of somebody who is competent a capable of having latitude to make those managerial decisions like we would in the priva sector without the riskfetng phoncalfr t w house saying you have irritated a constituency of my i don't want irritated. that is one of the things i find -- competent quality people who are woied bout gng phoncallheay they are gone. told me congressman wolf has a bill to do something like that so see if we can move along and get great potential.

ymorqueson yosk t wto keep going. >> you are all mine. mr blank, one of my concerns about this as i was processing thisoncept, unlikebi which the president appoints, this administrator has to work under the secretary of homeland curity. how would you deal with that? do you foresee any conflts thatightcc ith mirar bause of term limits? >> i think certainly that could come up. i would start by saying that may be a good thing if we have that kind of independence and that kindf serityif somody onli to our national security on this particular level. i think that is one of the

valuable things relative to and fbi director who can't b shoved asid with a sharp el bn i want to point to the board. can you see those? if you look at the red line that is the personal level we have in tsa. the ue les gng up and doth nf we ha the big bit and we are starting to see some kick back up. the number of full-time employees that weave working igctity that we have. do you have a problem with that? i hate to pick on you. iaiint.e pick on me.

y government career we saw this cut wita pilot in 1993, and 95. we cut the personnel and five for six later we were trying to fi p t11cor the cuts i935. utot ocase officers because we didn't need them anymore and all the sudden we needed them and the cia and half the workforce came aboard so i am very cautious when we use personnel cuts alone as a reurmelprlem. i am paul for revamping our tsa operates to make alternate changes such as investing more science and technology and more risk-basedecurity which inatanteens to invest more sharing. model and reduce the number of personnel screeners without having improved intelligence. >> tt is what mr. bloom

offered in his opening statement earlier. heants toee less empsis on llcehe w i agree with. what i want to emphasize is with that number is hard for us as policymakers to make the case for spending mey becau people think ware stinwhat agi o tacs o environment we are not getting any more money than the department of homeland security. thdepartment of homeland security and the department of defense because of the dangerous world we live in won't be as afctedy a oer rts beaue hao be safe and secure. but the numbers going up are over. we have to find a way to take the number we have gowhich wa roughl5 biion d reflest. its effective.

what i contend is we can't justify the number when people go to the airport with their terrible perspective or perceptions of tsa and expect them to go along spending more asborlncthg. we can't keep treating grandma like she is from a middle eastern country like yemen. i want to see that shift and that is why i keep emphasizing in the hng wca keep ing at we at sut h e to more threat based infrastructure and process than we have now. the fact ishe public is outraged with ts as chairn of this committee i opathesand we got to do something about that because we need this is the. we need a system that protects us because it is a very

dangerouworld. i get deb ambof isomee the way we do things which brings me back to the threat based approach. you talked aut a shift away from technology to more intelligence gathering smart sy. me at y mby at atldouike to see specifically? >> a couple things. going back to a comment by ranking member jackson lee about the current sizef tsa and whether it could reduced or he rnaor te c -- size correlates with the risk and what those folks are supposed to be doing against whatever the risk might be. until we have answers to those questions staying with the resources we have right now is not aefnsie th t bwoed.

also because everyone here believes a risk apprch is the way to go that means you have an understanding of threat and vulnerability. the threat is intelligence based. how you figure out what the reatighte anchans fro nt menwh technical intelligence means cuban intelligence means collecting the information, analyzing it and transmitting it in a secure responsive fashion to all the peoeesponsileorayerof sitr tindth will system is crucial. once that is optimal or close to it we know exactly how much we can reduce given the economic .imes we are in and the woioskou yield for a second. in this committee room, did janet napolitano say weere going to aerpa type of --

ttot at pl d bth opposite of what is happening in regards to personal? and was she willing to not found last line of defense measus >> when we had administrator kissel hear one of my questions is the first step -- you heard me talk about it. we have to go a lot faste and broader. that kind of program is what we need to do. tr e wno travelersho noreheth we think they know. and they are not a threat. move out of the line and the things we can do with other people that our intelligence base that we can get them away ndta trith islamic fundamentalist we are not getting the movement that backs up that rhetoric.

let me ask this. you made a great observation verecrioout supersors being we bafheto atanermpf at we are frustrated about. this is not rocket science. they say we wil do it but counkas gd way for this committee to put some action behind that rhetoric on that particular issue with supervisors? tor pnn e cha that you have every one of the red xs. and in the ely going allows the rmul a o0,

people. they revised the formula and full time equivalents and you got to ask for the elements of that formula. and time to screen people. omheffieie ask whe are telo. we have been promised that for years. and less screeners. they have a role in tmsf icalfr all these inputs that the tsa should come and justify to you because it is the result of not a human judgment but a formula that has them moving tow a ic sinev in terms of the supervisors, administrator kissel testified he didn't have the money to do the training.

my o feeling is money is not a problem atsa and it should be reveimma t reprogram the existing funds for doing training for the supervisors to have them be utilized as suggested and discussed. >> i will throw this out to whoevertsaner it. it is going too slow. who else should be included. anthe next cegie le >> a secret and higher cleance. people with fense material and trusted with that. to the third degree at the >> b tnthat

flight attendants go through the same background. endeavour when experienced a sin tirceassengersne,nd didn't bother me but people not ready to travel are upset about it. >> not only about time the security as well. and makee no one ound the doito b dcu mtont vigilance on all ends based upon the security procedures set up in place. they moved me along. >> youre not advocing gng ugscin a- >> we are not advocating security screening. we are asking to use the alternative screening processes

set up at this time. i will start by allowing frequent-flier interoperable in. if i aa frequent flier on delta and not united, i get the same screening. that is an easy fix if coroll by a >>threde d b >> wld like to point out in a respectful wayll these suggestions are good, nothing on the terrorist threat will me the country safern a wayhe ess inthe ca ahashld looking at instead when we try to come of with a better medication dealing with a disease. inr uem ter a smarter w of are leaner for public perception

purposes and smarter which gets to your point so the more of these people we can get out of the line the easier it is for us to look thoroughly at who is ft. it errs te di ty cket did they pay cash? all the things we want to look for to make more manageable, we have a smaller group. that is why i want to get -- supreme court justices have no bussngou rulg tweko hao business going through that. donald rumsfeld gets patted down at the airport. henry kissinger -- mind-numbing that that kind of stuff is happing >> tbry owthis udwoeagoch recommended a partial random partial -- i will use the term profiling even though is politically loaded but combination of random and

profiling partialample of t's host of things we can do for the threat based perspective on that. i want to point out to the people who don't know even if you are in the reject categy. i go thrgh free whe idhatherrles i don't get that onu.s. serve. i fly pretty regularly too. there is no reason why . i fly pretty regularly too. there is no reason why that shld be the case no matter which aie are yin therarlo o ts ano g t people out of line. i want this to have the public confiden and we don't and that is a concern to me as a pomathhelioe t cdeinhe t you have been a good panel.

very thought-provoking. greaideas and i appreciate your time for preparing for your testimony and your attendance adjrn.nd with tha thiheing [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ro udond bo secrets of the rocky flats nuclear weaponry facility from full body burden. christian iverson looks at the effect on the environment and the people today at 7:00 eastern. llon le o jean rdser

kirkpatrick. >> mcgovern with a magnolia accent. she saw the dominoes start to fall during this time. by 1979 she was in full-fledged opsiti to rternd wt shsaw crism, appeasement. particularly crucial in this respect, she saw the fall of the sh huge >> the political woman behind the cold war doctrine. the author of jar head on life since leaving the military. hospitals and jails. all parts of boov t weekend on c-span2. >> no plan. when you realize these armies or

remnants of armies were not coming to his age and escape to the west, that is when he colld wh heli i coo ndnd question of suicide. >> a new look at the second world war from adolf hitler's rise to power to his dark chaotic finadays. >> his main objective was not to be capred avet ss. asai bngd ar ma cand being spat at and ridiculed. he was determined to die. and eva braun was detemined to die with him. a.rsursp17rs air consp ste on the i was supreme court. marsha ternus wafirst woman to become justice of the supreme court. ian two of thenjustices lost thr seats on the bench after a rung talamse

mage i iowa. the first time they have been retained sins 1962 when iowa adopted a retention system for judges. hanus te k hevey of ara remarks are 35 minutes. >> american constitution society. i am a second year student at ariza law. the vice president of a p. po de, chapter hopes to enrich the educational exrience. anin ia, university of iowa. and she was appointed to the

iowa sureme court and elected chief justice in 2006 to become thrsma sve a efti. du henon tou in april of 2009 the i was supreme court issued a decision which unanimously declared same steps -- same-sex marriage restrictions on constitutional making ihether a third state to allow samsemarrge. ye thres weucfu targeted by an organized campaign. justice marsha tnus was one of three justices. in arizona since 1974 we have appointed judges -- if ther s cdesa toor the marriage selection process. in arizona it is important to stay informed on the issue. please join me in weoming justice ternus. [applause]

>>haou silence] >> special election. they sound like abstract principles to you but they are not abstract to me. i have lived them. or should i say i have survived them. ouinhiowa jualen eio voters remove three justices from the iowa supreme court after an unprecedented campaign funded by out of state special

interest groups. the primary impetus for the campaign against the ju s ico unanimous decision 19 months earlier in barnum versus bream declaring the defense of marriage act vlated the equality rights of same-sex couples under the iowa consti. entsprid cote context for our discussion of judicial independence andhe peril posed by politicized judicial elections. this serve in and i wouldike to talk about the barnum decision and its afterth itn pendent judiciary in our republic. alexander hamilton said in the federalist papers, quote, the complete independence of the courts of justicwas essentials giivthy.utnd d and wil

slightly paraphrase his words, that an independent judiciary was necessary to guard the righ of individuals from the will of the majority who may wish to address the minority thonstutnalrovionompatible ltndstoothatn the end individuals rely on the courts to ensure the rights guaranteed to them in the constitution are preserved and protected. one would think we shouldha pryf e nsti anprotting independent integrity of the courts. these values were not shared by the persons and organizations who oppose the retention of urt 10. of the i was supreme stursef cagn ast js was to send a message in iowa and across the country that judges ignore the will of the people at their peril.

tititt ge of retaliation a is wthnct udiaryharged witthe responsibility to uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens. before we can really understand how destructive such a message is to our democracy iis important to hed o sysm ofjustice. let's start there. i hope the people in this room know, you are all lawyers or law profeors, america's system of w.e asnhe ruf is pce of governi by laws that are quite fairly and uniformly to all persons. because the same rules are applied in the same manner to every one of the rule of law protectshe civil, lical, omndiaight t t rigs of the mos vociferous, the most organized,

the most popular were the most powerful. applying the rule of law is the substance of a work of t ur wea jia a judiciary committed to the rule of law. independent of, free of outside influence including personal goert r hetheates created laen cenop a constitution thaset forth fundamental rules and principles that would apply to citizens and their government. in fact the iowa constitution expressly ates, quote, this constition sllthe gsay, quote, and the block inconsistent therewith shall be void. these constutional provisions are given meaning by the courts because the judicial branch is responbleolvi

utet cens a sometimes these dispute include a citizen's claim the government has violated his or her constitutional rights. in such cases it is the duty of the court to determine the giuracony he ts gd s w heplstent in their constitution that any law inconsistent with the constitution is bullet. that is regardless whether a particular result will be popular. courts must protect the emth cstut declaring an unconstitutional statute invalid. only then can citizens be assured that their freedoms and rights will be preserved. rv a itajicev legislative and executive branches insuring a proper balance of power not only among

the three branches of government but also between the people and their government. of cours pplcawa s en reflect current public opinion. as alexander hamilton pointed out, until t people have amended the constitution iis llti alluponhemselves vilyo noge of the people's sentiment can warn their representatis in a departure from it. with this background in mind we turn to the iowa srmecot' e bnula bug by 12 individuals who resided in six communities across iowa. i want to talk just a minute about them because sometimes people forget that this lawsuit was about t lesf al pe aot trac

lu oe atover sa-sex marriage. let me read the description of these individuals from the courts's opinion. like most iowans the plaintis e red igg mbf be o their communities. they include theurse and business manager and insurance analyst, stay at home parent, church organist and piano ciorea aerplee someave ildr andthers hope to have children. some are foster parents. they prize their liberties and live within the borders with the lle t r ht protected. a belief embraced by our state motto. iowa's state motto is our liberties reprise and r rights

we will maintn. gog backo the opion, itheomli sred oer iands, most in one way. they were sexually and romantically member attracted to members of their own sex. the 12 plaintiffs comprise six sa-sexplhoivn cotelash eaainsopofng maied e day. and desperation shared by. prior to the supreme court's decision eyewall lot prohibited wa-sexplroryin hame a cre 'saragstatute states marriage is a simple contract requiring the consent of the parties capable of entering into other contracts accept as otrwise provided. e ofhesexceptis is rrctf e den of itrodeoy a marriage

between a male and female is valid. based on this statute prohibitg civil contract of marriage between persons of the same gender thcoun recder nso si se-x uple these 12 filed a lawsuit asking that the court order the county reported to issue the request of licensing. they claimed the law limiting civil contract of marriage to cotualnd nndone wom foible constitutional provision on which they relied was the quality claus i want included in their cotitution when i was became a state. it providesn relevant par thgenel asmbhaot pl tyla o cinsprileg which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

the iowa supreme court held the state law limiting civil maiageon manndne n atheaiif liigunr the iowa constitution. because the statute restricted the numerous privileges that flow from civil marriage to a limited class of citize. iveser law r 200en rd to married persons. because the iowa constitution expressly states that any law inconsistent with the constitution is vd the supreme court declares the offending aifs t rief raedhe anrd t cnty recorder could not rely on the unconstitutional restriction on a person who could not obtain a marriage license and was obligated to issue a licences to e sisameex ces oesnnd there.

the second chapter involves io's retention election. iowa has a system that is somewhat similar to arizona. we he a commison bed oo js -thprocs begins with a 15 member non-partisan commission that screens applicants for judicial office reviewing extensive information about each applicant's background, edatiorofessional skls plts css it t names of the three most highly qualified candidates for the governor who is then required to pick the new judge from the commission's nominees. the other aspect ofmeca mageec pssn aeton election a judge runs unopposed and voters choose whether or not to retain a judge for another term in iowa the term for supreme court justices stalols ed

rojualen a i what justices have not found it necessary to form campaign committees to engage in fundraising or campaign in any manner. in the 2010 geral election in mbofa premcision thr t o the ballot for retention. the 2010 retention elections were very different fro previous elections. because of our participation the justices on the ballot were ourgetedyspi b persons supporting a f a's campaign agast the justices claimhe iowa supreme court overstepped its constitutional role, quote, by declaring i want to be a same-sex mage sta instyhiot based on a critique of the courts and legal analysis. not once did i hear our

opponents claim that we had misinterpreted the iowa constitutionn finding the e plifs'teioriagact olat ts er c w ccized for ignoring the will of the people and ruling contrary to god's law. this latter criticism was particularly troubling because the court had made an effort in the barn ofpionif nofdesi as nedarerhe law as issue in barnum govern a legal contract, not the religious institution of marriage. the court pointed out this distinction in its opinion and i would like t qro -- cdo neran of government to resolve religious debates and entrust courts the task of ensuring government of void them. the statute at issue in this case does no prescribe the definition of marrgeor

giintus. ea t sre marriage is a simple contract andegulates that civil contract. in pursuing our task we proceed as civil judges far removed from giclcs f ocalebate he o civil marriage and state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage. as a result civil maragust nsti sarf l ection and not under religious doctrine or the religious views of individuals. after holding iowa's constitution required the states accord this same marital status oitse andamse upwentutour decisions that, quote, religious doctrine and views contrary to this are not affected and we

went on toay a religious denominaon c be ne ias ni betenn aoman notwithstanding the fact the court's ruling did not affect religious belief or practice, substantial opposition to the justice's reteion ca from individuals and groups who ev thertladod llnallaw. through an effort called project jeremiah preachers were urged to use their pulpits to advocate no vote on retention of the justices wch many did. one leader oth cpa thelti, otvor had done god's will by standing up to the three judges who tried to rea the fine god's institution. on'samniga uend isif the

as ind out the court expressly avoided redefining the religious institution of marriage. our opponents resorted to an inaccurate and alarmist message regarding imct the retention election was not about gay marriage it was about liberty. asserting the court's legislated from theench he said if they will do this for marriage all ur liber argr adistsnf t idhat the i was supreme court had trampled on citizens liberties and freedom. for example in a television ad sponsored by iowa for freedom which is their gup programng thiol gaon mage tamn wog families the narrator told viewers if they can read the fine marriage, none of the freedoms we hold dear are

sa from judicial activism. of course a siledi e owou twa no one's liberties or freedoms when it held the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. to the contrary the civil-rights of same-secouples to the secular bene tflro th civil contract of marriage were upheld. moreover the views of individuals and religious institutions were unaffected and their religious definition of onn and one woman was exsly s bue amn nse jues abo me an barnum or same-sex marriage. it became an assault on the power of the court itself. some critics of the court's opinion maintain that t court vihestiotythoty stutes

this view is clearly wrong. gee issue review of the constitutionalitof statutes is one of the most important functions of the court in o public a fution the ia em coform inly 1,000 cases prior to the barnum decision. as have already pointed out judicial review is entirely consistent with our founding fathers vision fhe relaon beten chf veme. aldemi sd inthe federalist papers without the power of the supreme court to declare acts of the legislature contrary to the constitution the rights and privileges resolved for the people would aunt alwioner es has always been part of the judge. certainly public debate about the merits of court decisions is a healthy aspect of the democratic society.

but what message isenwhen a re opaur crta decision? what message is sent when it is used to intimidate judges to in the future will be called upo make politically unpopular desion gudguselemec accountable to the people on the court makes a decision people do not like but the message they were really senate was judges should rule in accordance with polar opinion even when tht ignghe tion ad aicle by a minnesota judge who responded to similar contentions with thi observation, quote, it might sound good to have judges accountable to the ople, but ich ppl ldge taboso t lostor make the most threats?

should judges be accountable to the majority? if so what happens to the right of the minority? and what happens to a judge's he nstititaw when a judge starts to worry about who the judge will please or displsed with a ruling that we cease to be aovernment sed aw. in brown vs. board of education if public opinion were the standard that case would probably have had a different outcome. e court's decision in brown por with many people te thecis i now universally respected. as former justice sandra day o'connor has observed the brown cision was, quote, an exercise in accountability to the rule of law or pola

i nke umeciowas as well. i can assure you the members were very much aware when they issued the decision thatt would unleash a wave of criticism and we knew we could voint .robbeusof rtssremain true to our oath of office in which we promised to uphold the iowa constitution without fear, favor for pe of reward. sd e aso rp juesos arisk tld the rights of politically unpopular minorities against the wishes of the majority. as alexander hamilton wrote in the federalist, ote, it is grimrtann rubca aithpronf i rulers but to guard one part of a society against the injustice

the other part. james madison agreed noting, quote, in republics the great t fitlreect ri of the minority. the founding fathers recognized that an independent judiciary was a critical importance in safeguarding the rights of all parts osociety. hamionerd s ir upoion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the constitution. the fortitud of many judges will be tested in the coming e ps wsusfl t ite removal of three justices from the iowa supreme court. moreover groups interested in social issues are not the only ones that pose a threat to a fair and impartial judiciary. sine andomme c a hlsoel

politicized judiciary. just consider the fact culminating in the united states supreme court decision in caperton versus msey coal co.. ntte mon ese brmi to the supreme court. after his election justice benjamin refused to recuse himself from an appeal that had been filed by the coal an inupou t participated in the appeal and a reverse the $60 million judgment against the coal company on a vote of 3:2 with justice benjamin casting the deciding mpte in favor of t c relef motior justice benjamin's vote the appearance of influence is its self-destructive to integrity of the court as i will discuss in

more detaiin a minute. i have no doubtheros at ntlen and other special-interest groups would be emboldened by the events in ia and seek to intimidate and influence judges by the threat of removal from office. efforts tontimidatehe juarllr deyehebitynd willingness of judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the constitution or will result in the erection or selection only of judges who enes to adherea ain his country that judges become no more than politicians, deciding cases in accordance with public opinion polls or based onhat will satisfy the gry tur ef t transform judges into

theologians in robes, ignoring the rule of law in favor of biblical guidance. if they comes that judges me eoansoetd o republic are in serious trouble. only an independent judiciary can ensure the minority is protected om the tyranny of the majority. only an independent judiciary committed to the rule l c saarercizen's liberty and rights. politicized judial election whether retention or otherwise thunder mine judial independence. make no mistake about it. ovimistrenwies in jics less likely to be fair and impartial. why? first, there is the real and

perceived corrupting influence walvepaign ng iate gs a ornsse support judicial candidates do not expect that person once elected to vote a certain way on certain issues? of course they do. that expectation wil not be coaseromheme dg. -rngec politicized judicial elections the message sent by threats of retaliation and intimidation will be understood by sitting judges. some judges will be discouraged from following theule of law t sl ad tan unpopular outcome. as justice o'connor said, quote, the law sometimes demands unpopular outcomes and a judge who isforced to weigh what is popular rather than focusing solely onhat the law demands haost some impartiality.

ironically politicize judicial elections undermine our democracy even when judges elected >> reporr: in such elections adhere to the rule of law. even if judges have the courage to disineimpgn rirsigre threat of special-interest groups, fund-raising and campaigning by judges blur the distinction between judges and politicians. when judges are viewed by citizens as politicians as susceptible to influence-credibility is suspect. i am not being an armist. i have seen firsthand the impt olizedlensth t nnstuti i ge you an example. i was on the supreme court, i was supreme court for 17 years and i had never heard the integrity of our court or the

vearoned dirtly decision but in the two months after the 2010 retention election i served fore my term expired i witnessed two incidents that showed me the view of our court had chand foev. t ces t d rnchngrdth supreme court had entered claiming in very direct and express terms that our orders in those cases were politically motivated. never had i see s c 17 yrsn aw two in the two months i serve after the election. so whether we are talking about the actual porting influence of campaign contributionsnd judicial intidatnsily therptth judiciary can be influenced, politicized judicial elections

pose serious risks to our democracy. our government can only function as intended to function if the checks and balans envisioned by o f fhersre prve on t cs al is the duty of courts to declare laws incsistent with the constitution void. the principals in the federal d state constitution will be preserved and given aning onl fo bir iartial and independent judiciary. even more is required. crt decisions find their legitimacy in the willingness of other branches of government and our tizeobidey e n egsuained if court decisions are perceived to have no integrity? at the end of the day the debate about controversial court decisions and the judges the kehem boil do s

question. what kind of court system and do americans want? a court system that issues rulings based on public opinion polls, cpaign contributions a sm imion imialibaup the rule of law? if we as americans want our freedoms, liberties and rights protected by a fair and impartial judiciary, we must n thof a politically whenhe unpopular minority. a formedean of the yale law school once rned the lel of understanding or lackf al a to e ture ilofhe republic. if our nation's populists does not understand the role of the

three coequal branches of the governnt it will not be long before the futurstability ventl sptomgevly at compromised. he continues with this forewarning. it has been stated that the death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. will be aloxtom hydiennd undernourishment. i agree and i think what happened in iowa is a sad example of our past in thatthth direction. it is very easy to take what we have in america for granted that the underlying message is correct, america is not immune joe r a impartial

justice we have enjoyed. our children and grandchildren will only no justice under the rule of law if we fight to preserve it. it is th resnsibity and advocate for a judiciary with integrity. one free from the political influence and intimidation of special-interest groups and campaign contributors. ly iizs have ve ctmt adeendiy c ensure future generations that they too will enjoy a society governed by the rule of law and not by the tyranny of a majority. thank you very much f hav erdadt ty o fquestions, some. [applause]