award earlier today and i point out, a couple years ago the young high school lawyer who lives across the street from us came over and side i'm almost finished with all my credits as a certainly. all i have left is civics and driver's ed. and civics is -- isn't something where you learn it for a couple weeks in high school. it's who we are. there, the americans define themselves by their constitution. that what creates us. and this is our heritage. and you must know our heritage, and hamilton is a splendid way to know our heritage. i have what they call a bypass their rhythm living in a bypass universe. don't go to amazon or macyy's or walmart anymore you go to amazon and you deposit need to buy a car you have uber.

if grew to san francisco you don't need a hotel. go to a bnb. and in politics, governor, politicians now go right to the people. not to the press. not to the political parties. some good, some bad, but institutions and -- with modern communication, some of my children are very good in -- like musician very much and love to listen to classical music but they wear ear phones. like bait of the ven's -- beethoven's symphony. i call this this bypass generation. we can't bypass our heritage. we can't bypass the knowledge of who we are. you don't take a dna test to see of you believe in the freedom. freedom is taught and teaching the constitution is an act, and

i won't go on too much more about civics but thank you so much for having this civicses program, and informing our students that they have to learn about civics because that's who we are. we define ourselves by the concept of freedom. and by the contributions that our founders made. [applause] >> let me shift gears and ask you, obvious live the supreme court has to deal with issues, and that have a profound impact on individuals, and on society, and you're the last word on those issues when you issue that decision. and i'd like to know -- and you have played a critical role in many of those important decisions. i guess my question is, does that ever weigh on you when you wrestle will having to make a decision like that?

>> any judge in this room knows that decisions weigh on you, and they -- the fascination about being a judge is the same as the duty of being a judge and that is to ask yourself, why am aabout to rule the way i'm about to rule? you must always ask yourself that question. it's -- you can't get through life, can't get through the day, without making certain assumptions, without having certain precepts, certain preformed ideas, but in the law, particularly in judging, you must find the reason that is impelling your proposed decision, and you must then put that into a form of words, and you must then ask, is it logical? is it fair? does it accord with precedent? does it accord with constitution? with the constitution?

does it accord with common sense? does it accord with my own ethics and sense of values in that i must follow as a judge, not my personal values but the values that always of us must follow if we do our duty, and you must always ask yourself this question. and to keep an open mind and to always ask yourself, what it is that is driving you to make a decision, is not indecision. it's fidelity to your oath, and this is both the responsibility and the privilege of being a judge. these things weigh on you, of course, and you know you say -- mentioned social issues. we have to ask yourself, why is it that nine judges, justices, five of the nine, can make

decisions of such great import with respect to the issues of social justice, sometimes it's said that the court is anti-majoritian institution. that's true but over them, over history, it's important that the majority accept those decisions as correct. and how does that happen? it appears because -- it happens because we give reasons for what we do. when with write an opinion we try to compel allegiance, agreement, with what we have done. and over time, most of the decisions of the supreme court have found acceptance in the bench in the bar and, what is most important, in the american people, and it was not -- this

was not a position i sought. you know the story. i talked with marry yap, we told the then-president we did not want to go to washington, but he was rather insistent man and he said he asked it was necessary to accept and we did and we're pleased to fulfill the role that the constitution gives us. >> just kennedy you said the judges could consider the gravity of the ruling and we talked about the instantous and kind of shallow, even aspect of the internet that pervades society. at last year's conference you spoke of having rid nicolas

carr's book, what the internet is doing to our brain. went ahead and read that book and i thought it was fascinating. what kind of impact do you see from the internet on our lives and civil discourse that sort of thing? >> well, thank you for the simple question. >> no you bemoaning the cyber age. it's here, as much as the printing press and we're just beginning to understand it. if my interest -- give me time to read about the internet, i need -- it's necessary for know have a glossary of lexicon of terms. the phrase is all greek to me. that's misleading because if there's a greek word you can look it up and understand what it means. but when you read about the cyber age and the tell you what it means it's hard for people of my generation to understand it.

look it, there's a very good book, another one i would recommended about the internet. an article in the new york review of books just a few weeks ago by edward -- a man who is an historian and humanities professor at columbia just and rereviews five books debt the internet and the article itself is worth reading out so scholarly. he talks about two books. one is by hard court who teaches law, and harcourt talks about in the book is called "exposed: desire and disobedience in the internet." many in modern age tend to

confusion a selfie and yourself. the self is an idea, a projection, a promise, that you have formed over your past and you identify yourself as having a certain role so you can attain certain aims. but the internet with the selfie focuses just on the present, on what you are at that instant. many people have a digitized personal. 1984, one of the most important works ever written and has helped us understand the cold war. and in "1984" the nation -- the dictatorship was always surveilling you. now young people want to be surveilled. they want people to know where they are.

you have cases where you -- for patrolee or probationer you have an ankle bracelet or wrist bracelet attached to a gps. as a punishment. people want that now. they to know where you are all the time. it's completely reversed. and again in "1984" the state was interested in what you thought but with the internet. it would have this tremendous number of ideas coming in at all times. and this whole idea of privacy, which we think of as a person who has his or her own identity, is being changed very much by the internet and the law will ultimately have to deal with this. the whole concept of privacy has changed. is google liable because they printed a picture that looks like someone else and someone in their neighbors say he committed

the crime but were wrong? the whole idea of defamation and the rules for recovery for damage to your reputation may have to change with don't know hough this is going to work. there's a -- we have no framework, no analytical framework to understand what is happening to the internet, and the book is generally, thanks to the internet, quite problematic insofar as or our society but more book on a more positive note is by virginia heffennan called "magic and loss." she weigh thursday two suspects of the internet. -- two aspects of the internet. the magic is you can push a button and get any music you

want in two seconded. the loss is that the music industry is on the rocks as a result. now, if -- and she explains first -- she thinks the internet is a treasure trove for esthetics. it means that within everyone's reach, within their fingertip there is a magnificent world of beauty and art and contemplation and poetry. when texts first came, when we first -- when that was the principle part of the internet, more and more people were reading more and more spawn the internet has its own language, its own poetrys' some device we had to be 25 words. almost like having to do hiku so there's a tremendous challenge, a tremendous esthetic

possibility. suppose that the principle television networks, abc, nbc, cbs, and fox, told their film crews they had to work seven days a week, 24 hours a day, for 60 years, to produce footage, and they produced all that footage. that is what is added to youtube every two weeks. every two weeks. how do you police that content? well in part, it's self-policing. they have a system so that if something is offensive, from a moral standpoint, sexual standpoint, it's eliminated. it's more or less self-employsings -- self policings but commended with tremendous esthetic possibilities. on the other hand -- and, again,

this whole concept of privacy, the whole concept of government regulation, of speech, one of the things the communist is did not understand in the cold war was that the best kind of economic organization is lateral, not vertical. and the internet has lateral speech. a combination of corporations, government, large groups are putting messages on the internet. how do you sort all this snout this will present a whole new realm of questions and theoretical problems for the law. we're just beginning it. and this book by virginia heffernan who race beautiful writer, has a lot of technical parts that were difficult for me

to understand, but she says, for there's this magic but also a loss. there's a profound sense that we're more lonely somehow. we're not as close as we are to those who do shape our personality and whom we -- and we should consult. we hope -- almost hop the internet will lead to a civic civil discourse, this nation lacks a rational discourse. this rest of the world is looking at the united states tosee see if democracy works. and they look, governor to see the level of it discourse. is it rational, fair, respectful, decent? and we have to hope that the internet will lead to that dialogue which will be respected, first by us and then by the rest of the world. those or two books, and it's the

new york review of books. i don't know, june 23rd, page 34, i think. >> close enough for government work. >> well, i want to pick up a little bit on that theme of loss you just mentioned but the loss of a different type of and that is the loss of a close personal friend and colleague of yours, justice school a. i'd like to know if are -- justice scalia and i wonder if you share your thoughts what his passing has meant to you and the court. >> byron white, once told me that anytime a justice leaves the court, and a new justice comes it's a completely different court. and we have experienced that. we both experienced that. as senior and next senior judge we saw new judges coming and old colleagues moving.

always a new court. we have never experienced the loss of a colleague during the session while he was an active judge. we sit -- i never sad next to nino on the bench was i was next to junior to him and we're on either side of the bench, but at the conference table, we sat together. i sat next to him for 28 years. in the same room. and there were certain things i knew that he would research out very well and i more or less relied on him for that. it wasn't clear to me that we would agree on the result in the same with us. he was a -- a magnificent mind, and spoke and wrote with great clarity.

he came by to see me just before he left for scunges -- for a singapore and hong kong and then going on a hunting trip. said you have to take care of yourself. you're doing an awful lot of traveling and a lot of work here, the said, this i my last long trip. and it was our last conversation. but we're -- the same room with someone for 28 years, that is an important part of the institution, and that's the court tries to to use, and in order to ensure that we're probing the issues that are -- we rely on each other very, very much for help and we miss him greatly. >> thank you. he. >> he parked next to me, a

couple weeks after he lost him i went into the park and saw this empty parking place you. get these little -- and -- >> i've got some questions from the audience, and let me ask you the first one. >> they can afford our hourly rate. don't know about margaret. not sure either. >> all right. do you think that supreme court justices should serve for a set term? >> there are articles on this and how do you do it? some proposals where every four years, a president can appoint one or two judges or justices, and then with a provision that if one of those judges leaves the bench, then another could replace him just for that term.

and that makes sense. you have to amount the constitution to do it -- have to amend the constitution to do it. one reason to justify long tenure is that you have a voice that is overturned. our generation did not have a president. mccain would have been the president for our generation but did not become president. we did and do have in addition to myself, justice ginsburg and justice breyer and justice scalia, although we disagreed, our beginning points were the same because it was a generational thing and it's important that the court speak over time and life tenure does serve that. so you can argue it back and forth. >> if -- was being a supreme court justice your goal and if not, what did you have some

other job you wanted to -- you didn't too poorly in this career path but there is something else you would have liked to have done? >> the practice of law to me, i still miss my practice. we used to be called attorneys and counselors as law and i like the counsel mitchell office -- i was a slow low practitioner for five -- solo approximate practitioner for five years and i had totaled my clients we had to make this decision and were not far from a park and he said what. apposed to do. i said you make up your mind and go around the park, and people still talk to me bet capitol park walk. i miss that. >> a question on along the lines -- ilove my practice i miss my practice. >> sorry to interrupt. what do you know now that you

wish you knew as a practicing lawyer, even though you miss it. >> my practice was such that it was about only 30% litigation, but for litigation, it would have been helpful for me to know that the judge needs help on the hard parts of you case negotiate -- your case, not the easy part. might have been more effective -- i had mosome success but most of appearances withwere before the superior court in california. dinot go to federal court very often. but i think i should have done a better job of pointing out the really hard parts of the case to help the judge. recognize that. >> one question we have is, its

the duty of a citizen to vote? this is following up on the civicses theme and should they be taking advantage of thunder constitutional right to vote. >> my granddaughter became 18. we went to here high school graduation and she spent us a picture of her registering to vote. had a pair of cutoffed levis or something, coming out and holding -- and i had told her that when she goes to europe and sees those crosses, from world war i and world war ii, that those were young men and they were one of your awardees today was in the vietnam war. those young men and young women sacrificed themselves so you could vote and i told my kid you must always, always vote or you can't complain.

and it was interesting in the european union, the more power the european parliament had, the fewer people turned out to vote. it should be the way around. it's very odd. of course you have to vote and -- one way to teach civics is to have a tea rights and responsibility, and so every right has a responsibility. but voting the same you have a right to vote and a responsibility to vote. you must have been a civic consensus, civic dialogue to make the vote meaningful. >> i know you taught over in europe a lot, have you been following the brexit vote and the implications from your experience? >> well, it seems to me that this is a good time to ask, what is the meaning of political will? democracy assumes there's a

political will. voting is a way to formulate to express, to document political will. and there was concern in england and there's concern in some parts of europe that the government was too remote. now whether they right or wrong, this is for them to decide. but president reagan was asked by margaret thatcher if there was somebody she could talk to about the history of federalism, and he asked me if i'd meet with the prime minister, and she was do and dennis were very nice to me and marion when we went to 10 downing street, and part of my advice was that the hurt of our federalism schöpfs that one of the -- manying toes unite us but a in europe has to have -- talking about political dialogue in multiple lang are -- languages, 14 different languages. can you have political dialogue

in that many languages? the most -- the language most in common in the eu is english but only 12% of the eu speaks english. but one of the things was my suggestion that the prime minister was -- the united states was bound -- because it had a single currency and my advice if you join the euro, be very difficult for you to maintain your independence, and i think other people may have told them that, too so always some pluses, and minuses, but i hope that it's a wakeup call to oregon, those who are for brexit and those against it, that you need to have a working democracy where the citizens are concerned, where they take an interest in government. >> just -- i understand you

worked in montana as a young man. what did you do and how did it prepare you for your work on the court? >> i used to work in the oil fields. my uncle was in oil substance, and i was 14 years old, and my first job -- they didn't know who do with me. worked around a rig and i lad my new gloves and hat and overalls and was the longest day of my life. was there at 8:00 in the morning, and at 10:00 in the morning it was ready to go home. in the oil field the tool shed is call a doghouse and i was to nail up the siding of the doghouse. already had the studs up. a big toolshed, and about 10:00, the forman came over and said i'm going to show is guy can i nail. i hammered thele nail and and i nailed my glove to the wall. so i said, things are going fine here on the job.

and finally i pulled and i pulled my hand out of glove. he said you leave that glove there. so of course, every salesman, every toolpusher that came out, cam out and look at the glove. but the big event was when the burlington northern came through at 5:24. we see the people in the dining car. that was it for the day. but i had -- got a great job, wish i still had that job. there's a lot paraffin in the oil wells and the oil can't come up so the technology then was you had a tanker truck with gasoline burners in it and you pumped the oil up and you heated it and then pumped it back down to paraffin would melt and after

you did all the hookup and everything you had twice for -- hat to wait nor three days but god paid for three days. it was a great job. ... >> you should tell people, remind people that the congress has significantly reduced our jurisdiction. we use to have a jurisdiction over article 1 quarts in china. for the first 50 years of the last century this court had

jurisdiction over a legislative court in shanghai, and other places. and in shanghai was really only about 2000 miles in from guam so congress has really trimmed our jurisdiction back. [laughter] >> i see margaret approaching the podium. >> i want to thank all of you for a wonderful conversation. justice kennedy, judge burgess, please try me and a round of applause. [applause]

>> another supreme court justice on c-span two, elena kagan was part of a discussion last month on the life and supreme court tenure of antonin scalia who died in february. she was was joined by one of justice scully's former clerks and a friend of justice scalia who is executive vice president of the federalist society. this is one hour. >> sometimes people talk about members of the professor profession, alliance of the profession. i had a difficult time understanding the analogy. not so with justice scalia. he was, in his personal life, thoughtful and in public life he had a roar that could be heard for miles. so we thought it would be fitting today to bring together a few people who knew him very well.

we're going to talk about his legacy both personally and professionally. next to me is a justice kagan who needs no introduction. you had one last night, we were were very fortunate to have want for the fireside chat. so i will keep this brief it. i will note that she has helped very much every job in american law anyone lawyer would aspire to have. she did it as the first female dean of the harvard law school, the first female general of the united states. in her first first oral arguments in citizens united before justice scalia. we will hear that story this morning. next to justice kagan is my friend bill kelly who is now a professor at notre dame. he started his career as a law clerk for justice scalia. in between those two things he has done some interesting

things. he has served as an assistant to the general before the united states arguing before the supreme court. spent time in private practice, and was deputy counsel for the president of the united states in the bush administration. it is a real pleasure to have you here. he has also written one of the most insightful summaries of the justices career, i commend to you and the george washington law review, justice scalia and the long game. next to bill is leonard leo. leonard is a close, personal friend of the justice and his family. so we get that perspective with us today. you may have seen him on c-span routing from the scriptures at the justices funeral. he is executive vice president of the federalists society. he served on the united states commission on international religious freedom. he has but a u.s. delegate to the un commission on human

rights. among many other things. please join me in welcoming this wonderful panel today. [applause] >> now i plan to promptly get out of the way. to start things off i think everybody who knew the justice probably has a favorite anecdote. the man was larger-than-life. what each what each of you please share with us your favorite scalia anecdote. >> i'm not sure i have a single anecdote. i have two ways that i'm going to remember him. the first way is that conference, at the court. and no particular conference but just the experience of sitting with him at conference. so the way the conference table works in the supreme court, the chief it it's a long rectangular table and the chief justice sits at one end and the senior

associate justices at the other end. it goes from the table in order of seniority. for all of the time that i have been at the court, justice scalia was the chief associate justice. he sat on the opposite end of the table and at the junior justice i sat on his right at the under other and from the chief justice. justice justice scalia would keep up a kind of running chatter throughout the conference. it is a pretty formal affair, everybody talks talks in turn and so forth. but justice scalia would comment on everything. comment on the cases, comment, comment on anything that was being said about the cases. anybody who knows a justice scalia knows that he has an extraordinary sense of humor. he was an extremely with t-man. so i would just be laughing all of the time.

i would just sort of burst out laughing on occasion and the chief justice would be looking down at the table like what is going on there. why is justice kagan interrupting the proceedings. i always wanted to kind of like a like this, now it's his fault, you know. when i remember him that is the way i remember him most and best and that is getting me into trouble at conference all of the time. and that is because of his incredible wit and references. the second way i remember him is as different as different can be. but as a hunting partner. so the story behind this i grew up in new york city, we did not do a lot of hunting.

as i went through the nomination process people asked me a lot of questions about whether i had any connection with hunting, guns, gun culture, or whatnot. i failed all of these questions miserably because the answer was no, i had been an urban east coast or all of my life. this is something that is pretty foreign for my set of experiences. is talk into a senator and he was asking these questions and i said it is true that i have not had these experiences, but i would like to have them. if you would invite me to your ranch to go out hunting with you i would love to come. and he had this abject look of horror on his face. the white house staff who accompany me had like falling off the sofa. and i thought okay, i went to far so i tried to pull it back a little bit. so i said i didn't mean to invite myself hunting with you,

but i will tell you what, if i'm lucky make enough to be confirmed i promise you the first thing i will do is go to justice scalia and ask him to take me hunting. so when i dig it confirmed one of the first things i did was that i went and i told him the story. he thought it was hilarious. he thought it was the funniest thing. so he took me to his gun club and he taught me how to shoot. he taught me about gun safety and at a certain point he said okay, i think i think you are ready to go. he invited me out with a very long-standing group of hunting buddies he had. we went out near charlotte bill, virginia virginia the first time and we shot quail. what surprised me and it's a measure of his incredible personal generosity as he did not do this as a one-time thing as a funny story and let kagan

satisfy this campaign promise but he kept on asking me. he basically said join our group. be a part of this thing that he loved us so much. one of the reasons i will remember him always in that context is because one of the things that i think may justice scalia himself is this incredible joy of life. i really have never seen anybody enjoy something more than he did hunting. it was wonderful to watch this man have this incredible -- as he did this. also, it was it was on those trips where i got to know his family well. when he came out to wyoming a few days once, we went out to mississippi for a few days. on. on these day trips it is two hours in the car to charlottesville or richmond, it's a lot of time to talk.

so a lot of my personal connection with him came from those trips. that is the way that i found myself remembering him over, and over again. >> thank you for inviting me. as i was thinking about this it occurred to me that it is not everyday that once it's on a panel next to a supreme court justice. justice scalia what it said it says the premed justice, i'm sure justice kagan has heard that. so it is a little intimidating but it's not nearly as intimidating as it was over 30 years ago to be a rising second-year student on the harvard law review facing a supervising editor, elena kagan. it was truly scary them. [laughter] and the first thing she did was

about this conference were no human being is allowed to go must have a commission to the supreme court. how are you you supposed to follow that? well i can follow that. i can say this, as i as i think about anecdotes in the justice, the idea of his laughter comes to mind. he would laugh a lot. he would say things that he believed to be obviously true and way for one to react and if you disagreed he would express false outrage and if you agreed he would laugh and laugh. the one anecdote that comes to mind sitting here is when i was with him, my wife and i were expecting our first child 28 years ago. his third child. he had nine children toys looking for tips. justice, any parenting tips? no, come on. tips, what you mean? marine did everything. but i tell you this, she's a if

she's a pain in the quench is young, she's going to be a pain in the the whole time. if she's not, she's not. >> i guess there are two things that come to mind. one is the story that the justice use to rebalance with a lot of times and we never told him we heard it several times already. it had to do with his senior year at georgetown. he was a great student there. there is a tradition back then that you had to have an oral exam before a board of priests at georgetown. i do do not think they do that now.

but he had his oral exam, as he described it it was hitting it out of the park, one question after the next. he knew his renaissance literature, history, he had been grounded in the ancient history. he thought he was doing great. then the chairman of the murder board priest said we have one final question for you mr. scalia. what was the most important event in human history? he doesn't remember the answer he gave what he remembers is events in human history rushing through his mind, the incidence from the roman empire, the invention of the printing press, and he rattled off one of these events in human history and the priest just shook his head and

said, no, mr. scalia, the incarnation of christ. he describes himself as just shrinking to a tiny little person in front of this committee. what was wonderful about the story for all of us who heard it was first, as i think bill eluded to he always love to joke about himself. he had a great sense of humor. he he was telling a story about a failure of his weird said a lot about the type of person he was. secondly i think it said a lot about both his humility and about how he views human life. he was looking, the way he puts it he was looking for some great event in human history, something that man did that made civilization great. what the answer that he was supposed to give a had to do with human greatness. i think that says a lot about who he is and how he conducted his life.

>> i love flyfishing with the justice. as you know, i would say he fished exactly as you would expect someone from queens, new york to fish. [laughter] >> there are no fish in this river. [applause] >> that is the one time you would take additional motives. >> growing up in colorado you learn how to do some gentleness. there was no gentleness. what it lacked in finesse he made up for it with enthusiasm. justice, you have have spoken about this contribution to statutory interpretation, i wonder if you ensure so of your

thoughts with us about his views on that. >> i was very honored last year to give the antonin scalia lecture, a donor wanted to honor him and so the way to do it was to do this lecture series and i was asked to do it and it was a terrific honor. this is when he was alive. i went ten i spoke with my friend and one of his clerks about his contribution to statutory interpretation. i think what i said there was that he should have declared victory long ago. this is what i think justice scalia will go down in history for more than anything else. it is having changed the entire's statutory interpretation. so it does me a little bit little bit with a story about a particular case of mine which i had in my first year at the court.

it was a freedom of information act case. it dealt with the scope of an exemption for the freedom of information act meaning that the scope of something where the government could hold back rather than disclose material. it was an exemption for i think it was called internal personnel procedures and practices. somehow the d.c. circuit had created, out of this idea that you can withhold materials relating to internal personnel practices, this exemption said you can withhold anything that would allow people to violate the law. the way they did it was there was a set so d.c. circuit opinions about this exemption written by superb judges at a time when we both went to law

school in the 19 eighties. they did not really mention the text of the exemption until page 18 of the opinion. they just talked about all kinds of things they founded the legislative record and they talked about how it just made sense that this exemption exists. so that was the question whether or not this exemption was as interpreted by the d.c. circuit in a way that had been going on for decades by the time this case i got to the court. i remember going to conference one morning and i bet the justice on the way and in the way supreme court offices are set up he was down the hall from me, it is really quite something, he would come out of his office door and he would look down the hall to see if anybody was coming, the two other people down the hall word justice thomas and me. then he would wait for you to come up the hall. i was felt like a teenage girl

being, somebody was a wedding for me to walk to school together something like that. it was it was sort about of a -- anyway, so he waited for me to come down the hall and we walked to the rest of the way to the conference room. i said -- everything about the way we do statutory interpretation is different. that you you cannot imagine anybody writing these kind of decisions now. nobody in the court on the left, the right to newbury on the court think you could write a decision which didn't really mention the statutory text. nobody in the court would write a decision which placed front and center random materials from the legislative record and legislative history. nobody in the court would just think it was enough to say, will this kind of makes sense as we see it. that had all changed in the prior couple of decades. really it all changed because of

justice scalia. always felt as though justice scalia was still, the rest of us were not quite purist enough for justice scalia. sometimes sometimes we did mention legislative history, sometimes we would say something that he would've thought was not completely in keeping with the tax. but i always thought he had won 80% of the games. the only reason everybody didn't recognize that, didn't recognize the entire court had moved extremely far in his direction was because he kept to my ending go to the last 20%. effective he had been up bit more of a diplomat or less of a fighter what he would've said is isn't this cool, basically everybody interprets statutes the way that i've been saying they should. i think that is right.

>> i think what justice kagan said was exactly right. and part of his personality. he believes that human beings were imperfect and so the last bit would've been difficult for him to take. it rankled. he almost single-handedly transformed the terms of not only how things are done but the debate about how things are done. even those those who do not agree with scalia interpretation theories and i really is quite a change of the last generation. >> the only other thing i will out on this is that i would commend everyone in his last

book leading off which i think could potentially go down as important as blackstone's commentary or hooks institute, here i think the great exposition of how much he cared about language and construction, taking on the whole construction and trying to explain there is meaning for the enterprise of interpretation even when these cannons are gone often about rather loosely. he had an incredible, extraordinary breath of knowledge and i think that final work is a very important capstone to his career. >> it was a terrific book and he went on to talk about the lockhart decision which was a decision last year where the court had to deal with very

weird statutory language and justice soto moyer wrote the main and i wrote the dissent. and both relied on justice kelly is a book. that's not to say that you can make anything of it, but sometimes there are good arguments on both sides and their were arguments on both sides that could be found in the many pages of that book. i think what it is a sign of and i think this is your going to see this over the next decade is that it is going to be the standard reference when it comes to statutory interpretation question, and particularly about the statutory cannons so he it's a standard reference quote. [laughter] >> we have to hear the story about citizens united, your very first appellate oral argument, i just cannot imagine i need to

hear that story. >> well i'm very nervous, it's my first argument, was nominated to the position for whatever reason because i had not done an appellate argument. and to have your first will be at the spring court and be of importance of citizens united i was very nervous. making me even more nervous, the day before i had gone up to the court because the day before was the -- of soda meyer. the clerk of the court was looking to be nice and making conversation, and he said i will show you what will be on the bench for the justices when you go up to the podium, this is what the justices look at. but they look at is a few pages with your standard biographical material and who has made the

motion for you to be a member of the supreme court bar and things like that. but attached to it is a list of the supreme court arguments you have done in the past. and he hands me this pile of papers, there were three other lawyers who are arguing that day and the first one is ted olson and the list goes on and on and you're flipping pages then you still have 90 arguments, and -- has done 75 arguments that are still flipping pages. the third one was floyd a drums and he was a relatively be to the pope court he had only done 25 arguments. and that is set elena kagan and there is no paper. [laughter] so i said to him are you trying to psych me out? is that what you're doing? i get up there the next day my heart really is pounding. i almost like couldn't hear anybody for it pounding so but i got up to the podium and i had a

few sentences, five or six sentences memorize to get me into the argument and i thought i would get five or six sentences out before the justices interrupted me. i got a single sentence sentence out. it was a short sentence. on them from the bench i hear no, no, no. [laughter] and then he proceeded to tell me why this single sentence that i had uttered was 100% wrong. but it was great for me that day, the best thing that could've happened to me because when that comes at you you have to deal with it. you have to say something back. and i said something back and i thought okay, i'm in this game.

so it was a great favor he did for me i think. and for the entire year i actually loved be a by justice scalia. as a solicitor general i argue a wide range of cases and some where justice scalia naturally agreed, print agreed in some cases where justice scalia did not agree. but either way i actually loved bn by him. he asked questions in a very straightforward way. they're often extremely tough, extremely aggressive, aggressive, but there is never anything hidden in the. there is no hidden agenda and there is no lack of clarity. you always knew exactly where he was coming from and exactly what he meant. he also gave you a chance to respond to those questions which sometimes and supreme court arguments you don't have but he was very fair

in that way. he was going to give you the best he had but he was going to give you a chance to argue back. for the entire year i enjoyed the back and forth with justice glia. i found it probably if i picked a single justice where it case in a case whether i was with him or against a or whether he is with me or against me this case and in case out that those were the exchanges that i enjoyed the best was with him. >> as a law clerk give us some insight into his workings. he could be tough on counsel at oral argument. maybe. maybe some insight into why. >> i was there, i was a young person and learning his the job. one of of the things about becoming a federal judge is that

there is a lot of law to learn and we expect our federal judges to become expert in every area of the federal law. it is a hard thing to do. when you are on the supreme court you are expected to write opinions that i like the people who understand the hold emmett of law. you you are supposed to be an expert at the level of the true experts in every subject. it is really hard thing to do. it is it is a lot to learn. it is a very hard job. it was exciting to hear from an incredibly exciting and fun to be with him as he was figuring out what he thought, because he genuinely did not have views about most questions when he began on the supreme court. he knew a lot about administrative law and regulatory questions i can before before him on the

d.c. circuit. he was not a world expert on criminal procedures and things like that. so he was learning. he loved it and it was fun, but it was hard. his process was that after he had read the briefs and you had read the briefs he would gather all of the law clerks for a meeting before the conference in every case. the group would talk about every case for as long as it took for him to get to the point where he knew what he thought. that experience to this day is an extraordinary legal experience that i've had and is challenging. just as he is a very active question on the bench imagine what it was like when there is nobody listening. and it was fun and challenging. and the excitement was that we

really felt like justice kalil was different. he was new and different because he really cared about theory and methodology in the right way to do the job appropriate to the role of judges in our constitutional system. he really, really cared about that from the beginning. to see him work out that was really quite extraordinary. part of the reason why he was so aggressive and argument and frequently so and sometimes in his opinions he was very aggressive, particularly his separate opinions was that for him it was not personal. it was was about the law and he took seriously that when he put the robe on it was the office and not the person. she understood that and believed it and lived it in a way from case to case across 30 years of it really was extraordinary.

he did not care who won the case, he did not care. if it was a government and criminal case the government has to follow the law. what is the law that it is what he cared about. it wasn't that he didn't care about the human consequences of cases he thought that the people of the united states had established a way in which the legal system would resolve these questions about people's legal rights and duties. no one had given him the power to decide who should win, except so far as the law dictated that answer. for him that was the law i wasn't the person that matter and that's who he was. he would've no more thought that it was his role to decide winners and losers in a legal case in terms of his consequence of the outcome then he would've

thought it was his role to go across the street to congress and urge them to pass or not pass a law which will have consequences for people. . .

>> >> where she could spend time with his family and it wouldn't be as frenetic but back then he said jones day was a term that recognize the importance of balancing work and family and throughout his career even though he was extraordinarily busy with being a lawyer and academic and a government official, he always had time for his family. they are very closely knit family. they have great fun together her in particular at the dinner table there was much

banter just like at the conference table in the courtroom and he had a great family life. talking about his children and many grandchildren there was quite a number, a very large number. of course, he was also devoted to his faith. and there is one that is marked on my mind about that . after holy communion to go back and the pew and bowed down with his face cupped in his hands.

as a symbol of his humility. and it would speak volumes about who he was then very much instilled upon his family. to talk about the frenetic rush to have nine children it is not easy to get out of that house. or getting into mass late. but ultimately he imparted a tremendous sense of faith on his children and you can see it in them. they are great kids many of you probably saw them as the funeral mass in washington. that was extraordinary.

to see his son preside over that mass two hours? to have to cross of a casket to stand before his entire family probably one of the most powerful i have never seen at any mass and that is a tremendous tribute to his dad as a matter of his upbringing. >> tell us what the holiday parties for like at the court with the justice. >> every year i know of the was self-appointed, i suspect you was the head of singing. [laughter] he had a great voice.

and in the supreme court to immigrate deal of gusto. but in terms the thing that i remember after the of holiday party we have attrition that the court places many traditions samar peculiar that we will gather for any justice birthday and we sang happy birthday to a whoevers birthday it is. and justice scalia was the only one who would sing. said he would sing the rest of us would mobil was off laugh when -- laugh mobile the rehab to carry on

without ahem and we sound atrocious. >> we talk a little bit about the justices contributions but we have not touched on contributions to the interpretation m&a view of criminal defendants are even end of last term. was that surprise? >> no. in general model. the interpret it of methodology with some frequency.

was sometimes people criticize him to be results oriented. if we think it is good if they are guilty of serious crime to go free? of course, rico one that. there is more at stake than that the media question. so he took some time intellectually to come to the few for the right way to interpret the constitution. and one thing there isn't a law of good competitors out there. if you believe and how the constitution is understood

to require it out, then that is where he would go. and about the of personality he believed the default position of human beings is we are free. somebody has to intervene to change that. at peoples liberty it is that simple. but the fundamental fact was the fact that he was libertarian with criminal procedure because he knew the constitution.

and then this situations by the people who made of law made sure the freedom of the people could not be enriched . >> would do like to comment on the regionalism? >> -- or regionalism. >> was part of the of broader enterprise of preservation and construct of the constitution. one of the most important contributions he made was to inspire to generation of law students to think about the constitution going back at the '70s and '80s if you ask people about the constitution, and they tend

to talk about rights first amendment, of fourth amendment, criminal procedure, privacy, and then crisscross the country to say why is america such a free country? if you think it is the bill of rights, you are crazy. every president, every bit and republic even the evil empire had a bigger and better bill of rights and ours. but without the structural constitution with checks imbalances to talk about the structural interest all the time.

but those rights are partial guarantees. with that limited role of the judiciary and how one goes about the business to interpret the laws of the constitution is part of the commitment to defend the structural constitution of freedom and dignity in the constitutional system. >> that it didn't have to be perfected just tested be better i was remained crippled dash reminded of a joke that he used to tell about two guys and a bear comes along a one starts running the other says why are you running? you cannot outrun the baird he says that have to outrun the bear, i just have to outrun you. [laughter] saddest is true with

constitutional methodology. the question is what is better than the rest? it will be no shock that regionalism is not better than the rest but instead to say with the justice pallia contribution in this area that when he put on the table for everybody posted beaches answer in those that did not is a pretty fundamental question and a challenge which was that somehow everybody has to come up with the method of constitutional problems because of what the judge could not do. here are my principles here are my politics in this was

not the way to do constitutional law. and alice fokine were formulation -- outspoken for a law -- for those who did not sure that answer would grapple with the question if it isn't what it does discipline judges and to have to come up with that question, eddie only way another method of interpreting the constitution can be better if is if it has in answer to

the question of our our judges disciplined it is about ballon -- and the loss. >> but i also get the impression he improved upon upon, as i went to law school we talk about original intent and the tendency to get into the heads of the framers inasmuch more if not exclusive about the original list material. so in addition to advancing the relationship they actually improved upon the approach that is very important for people across the spectrum because there are others who tend to use

those principles were from 20 years ago. ha -- and that wasn't good part from justice scalia. >> to add a word but i do think the times in which we live, the of the goal world is important to reflect upon the nine justices' to disagree very sharply sing happy birthday to one another. as justice kagan and is sitting here talking about her friend even though they disagreed mightily about the big questions in the supreme court halted functions collegial the should be able model of our professional and personal lives. just to believe the president to believe in the

rules and sometimes to talk about those cages -- cases he said i am responsible for what i say it is part of our system. so the one-way in which of disagreements how they should go about their jobs and interpret the of law, of the reason why that justice kagan and justice scalia could agree in the case that matters a law that the president's lead to deal, that is important with that state of jurisprudence that we have. >> all three of you are among the finest legal

educators in the country. i know justice scalia cared passionately about education and one of his great things he was involved in was renaming of the law school at george mason so could you comment on his views and contributions? >> he loved to be a teacher. is betting there is a law school named in his honor because of the dedication to teaching the dialogue. george mason obviously is near where he would work and also gave the dedication

speech years earlier. so in that respect is an appropriate place but that is for the legal academy broadly he had a great affection for what was going on with the justice kagan leadership back then we talked from time to time. he loved him is years teaching and at stanford briefly. and chris crossing the country talking to law students he would spend an hour and a half of his speech fielding question after question and about the dog -- a legal education. what should i do melos school? >> the point that i think you made how they expect federal judges to be experts had everything.

take the intellectual property, the statutory courses, learn how to do real law. take those courses because that is what you will need. >> that he would often say the reason why he wrote his separate opinion was for the law students for the future of generations he was surprisingly optimistic so if if you would dwarf make the case to persuade people

maybe next time. but he also wanted to make his separate opinion especially dissenting opinions more fun to read. because law students have short attention spans. [laughter] so the educational mindset was i am thinking 10 years from now. >> i was a classroom teacher 15 years and i taught thousands of students and the most fun class's almost always involved the justice scalia opinion. sometimes he wanted to shake the of a little bit. but the way he writes is

mesmerizing and then the positions you did not think he would be attracted to all of a sudden become attractive the way he presents them and argues them. and he did say in number of times the target audience of law students he hit the bull's eye because of students that come in to open the textbooks with a dry opinion after dry opinion nobody looks at those with a sense of humor one there is no life and then you get to justice scalia.

is hard to describe. all of those students come to me to say i just find myself what you saying? he would say that was because of the power of his idea with that incredible power behind the style he knew what would make a loss students set to take notice and they did. >> in the pantheon of justices. >> data want to do a ranking but i am glad he was alive then that he would critique my entire lecture.

[laughter] and to what to tell whole tape for points of disagreement it is tremendous. of course, they did. and 100 years from now nobody will know who we are. received important now been in the course of history i ensure you, if you go back to the justices you will not know law of those that is not true with justice scalia i do think he will make as one of the greats and one of

the most important figures of the court. the methodological of what we have talked about the way that we all talk about what and that is the most fundamental thing with at agree or disagree but justice scalia changed the framing of legal arguments and that is a pretty good accomplishment 100 years from now they will wake up to say he was a great supreme court justice and important regardless whether you agree or disagree of his positions he will be high on the list. >> i completely agree.

when he was appointed there was a law of commentary that was charismatic and that would be very effective on the supreme court and that was part of the narrative that he alienates people and is an effective. it is my view that he plays the game that he has the idea is overtime that transforms the debate in a fundamental way is exactly right. he will be remembered as well for his prose.

that was unbelievable. after justice jackson it is hard to find better supreme court opinions than that of justice scalia. i do think distracting one from those students by the rioting -- white teen from the underlying substance. . .

>> please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] [applause]