they were suppose d to provide exculp attachment ory evidence. $14 million wiped out even though a jury of his peers said you deserve this. tas it's not just about john thompson but certainly is about a life of a man destroyed by a prosecutor's office but the supreme court failing to provide take the opportunity to provide a disincentive. obligation, brady obligation to provide that evidence. you're right, it can happen with the legislature, but the court could play a critical role also in creating the proper incentives that would recalibrate the system. >> and sometimes it does do that. to give the court credit, we have this wonderful decision a few months ago, the most important privacy decision in the past decade where the court 9-0 rejects the proposition that we have no expectation of privacy in public and said you do presumptively need a warrant if you're going to track someone's movements 24/7 for a

month when you put a gps on the bottom of his car without a valid warrant. the justices disagreed about the reasoning but all nine of them said there was a degree of privacy in public. and then they looked forward to the next case, justice sotomayer said if i surrender data to one party, i abandoned privacy in it for all purpose, which the courts could do nothing more to protect privacy than reexamine ing that third party doctrine. we're talking about complicated moving parts and legislatures, resources and stuff. one things courts can do is interpret the constitution and they can protect privacy in a really helpf fbaneful way. >> every first year law student knows that in their -- in being judges, judges actually do make law in the common law tradition. the entire system is set up to do that. but in a supreme court nominee were to say that in the

confirmation hearings, they would be pilloried for arrogance and a misunderstanding of how the justice system works. my point in saying that, we seem to be having a completely irrational conversation about the role of the courts in which you cannot say simple truths. i mean, every nominee who goes up there for a confirmation hearing and every senator who sits on the other side of the table knows we have a colummon w system, knows that the role of judges is to make laws. i'm not just venting. my question actually is, is there a way apart from partisanship to have -- and whose job is it? i understand that the press feels that it's the press' responsibility and all, but whose job is it to say regardless of what side you're sitting on, we need to have a

rational fact-based conversation about the courts. how do we get back to having a conversation in which we say, look, this is what the courts do. this is what everybody wants it to do and this is how they actually function. >> your we can't handle the truth premise in your question -- >> i'm not even sure people can't handle the truth. they're justify not given the truth. >> not given the opportunity. i was sort of filling in the blank with other issues as i was listen i listening to your question. you could ask the same question as it relates to rational discourse about a lot of things. not just the course. no, no. the reason i make that point is that perhaps we're talking about something that's more fundamental and not just unique to the courts. >> i must say -- >> i don't know. i don't know. >> rememberi ining mickey's com that time is gone. i guess i'm pessimistic about our ability to have those wider

kfrgs conversations. we're on c-span, so i won't -- >> can i say one more thing? >> sure. >> there's an old joke it's always safe to write to congress because congress doesn't write back? that's even truer of the judiciary. because its own epass is that we make our decisions and we don't speak outside of that. it makes it very vulnerable to this kind of rational attack. do you see anybody in society whose responsibility it is to promote the truth and a rational discussion about this if the judiciary can't? and a lot of people in politics won't? >> yes. i have someone. steven colbert. he has more influence over what people think about the supreme court than even the -- when he

goes after the court for citizen's united, the stephen colbert act and introduced justice stevens and says do you are regret any decision in your long career and stevens says only the decision to give this interview. reshaping public opinion of the court. it's very funny and so forth. but if you want to promote discourse, that's part of the discussion. >> i fully understand your question and i actually think that we may be at a tipping point where it may be headed back in the other direction. >> i hope you're right. >> the last confirmation, elena kagan. people didn't watch to the degree they had watched. ratings were starting to go down and even the networks kind of stopped covering, looked around to find -- they didn't do gavel to gavel, which used to be you watched it all day and you

watched it all night. in a sense it's become a kind of performance that people are getting turned off. and i think, you know, we may have reached the tipping point. i think it would take one -- i don't even think particularly courageous, one senator on the judiciary committee perhaps from each party, aor maybe even not, who was doing their job -- the confirmation hearing was a job interview. if i were to interview somebody for a job and i were to say things like do you eat peanut butter, ask a bunch of irrational questions, nobody would allow me to get away with that in a job interview. we do allow it in the confirmation hearings and the public has tuned out. i think a courageous congressperson simply doing their job could go up there and ask the questions that are simply responsive to the position that the person is seeking. it's interest iing to me that se of these questions, to me, are critically important. for example, i have a whole set of civil procedure questions i always want to ask. not just because i teach civil

procedure but it's a place where the courts have enormous influence and the roberts court has actually shaped a lot of how litigation gets managed through their civil procedure decisions. the questions are never asked. i understand they don't seem sexy, but if i had told you the cases where the courts had done it, walmart versus dukes, they're all cases that are kind of interesting on their facts. but people don't focus -- congress should be helping people understand what is the real power that this individual will have in their hands? what does the supreme court do or the chief justice do with the judicial conference? they're not doing their job. but i think one or two courageous congresspeople, particularly as the public increasingly turns off could begin to recalibrate us -- i shouldn't say recalibrate us. it's always been pretty crappy since we started having public

confirmation hearings but could help us have a better sense of what this job is really all about. >> time for one more question. i think someone in the back of the room has the microphone. >> yes, sir. how are judges cutting corners? is it a matter of summary and quasi summary to positions? is it a matter of oral arguments? is it a matter of relying more and more on law clerks? and do i sound bitter? >> that peanut butter that you're asking about. how are you cutting corners? >> i know at the trial level in the state courts, there are enormous pressures on judges, you know. the famous adage justice delayed is justice denied is true in the sense that it's better to get a bad decision now that you can go ahead and appeal than -- i think

there is democrat imunition in those that are understaffed with clerical support and don't have enough judges to begin with to begin their work. at the appeallate level, i don't think there is any crisis. i stand to be corrected by people with more experience around the country, but we're such a tiny little portion of it functionally and financially that i don't think it's an issue. but linda's comment about the immigration courts where, in fact -- i mean, that's a very real issue, whether these cases are getting any attention at all. when you look at the volume. i saw one study that suggested that given the volume at the administrative level, you know, you multiply the number of

minutes in a judge's week and divide it by the number of cases, it was like 2 1/2 minutes a case. it w appalling. >> oh, yeah. a dozen cases a day and they're complicate complicated cases. >> what about fees that are charged? when you plead or you do a null pros and the judge will assign some kind of fee. you're happy they won't add any points but then they say $157. obviously i've had some tickets. you pay the money, right? >> right. >> there are people that can't pay the money. they end up not being able to pay the moni and it results in a warrant and people end up getting arrested as part of this, too. where does the scale for the fee come from? >> it's actually legislative. >> really? >> it's a matter of law. in many systems the money from fees and fines either go

directly into the general funds or they are sort of preallocate ed to things like court security or other court functions. it varies enormously from state to state. and there are issues to help people that can't pay. but i'm sure millions slip through the cracks. the fee question is very interesting in one respect. and that is when the crisis hit and state court budgets started being cut a lot of state courts around the country looked at increases in filing fees to fund court functions. and, you know, sometimes you hold your nose and do what you don't believe in. but the notion that the justice system in the united states should be funded by the people who have to come to court and use it is as anti-democratic a principle as i can think of. and courts have done it out of

desperation. but i know of no state judge who believes in it as a moral proposition. >> that will have to be the final thought. i want to thank you. i should have to pay tuition to sit with you. i'm serious about that. fantastic panel. always does a terrific job bringing together great minds. i want to bring back the president of the american bar association, bill robertson. >> what a program. this has really been a very special occasion. lots to think about. lots to consider. this brings to a conclusion our program, the courts and constitutional democracy in america. please join me in expressing our appreciation to john and these distinguished panelists for a wonderful discussion. on behalf of the american bar association, i would like to leave you with the thought after thanking you for joining us and

making this a wonderful law day, conclusion to our celebration and expression of our concerns. if we didn't realize it before, we certainly realize now, after this discussion, that an independent, fair and impartial, adequately funded court system is the key to constitutional democracy and constitutional democracy is the key to freedom. because no courts, no justice, no freedom. thank you all very, very much. [ applause ]

campaign has reported being more than $4 million in debt. c-span 2 and c-span 3 are featuring special prime time programming. tonight, american history tv prime time looks at two battles of the civil war, starting at 8:00 eastern with the battle of ft. donnelson and at 9:00 it's shiloh battlefield. c-span 2 presents book tv in prime time with memoirs of american soldiers who served in iraq and afghanistan, including the story of an ill-fated special forces unit in eastern afghanistan and the autobiography of the most lethal sniper in u.s. history.

it all starts at 8:00 eastern. between 1971 and 1973, president richard nixon secretly recorded nearly 4,000 hours of phone calls and meetings. >> always agree on the little things and then you hold on the big one. hell, i've done this so often in conversations with people. i said we'll succeed thconcede make them feel good but that don't give them the big one. >> conversations with presidents. this week hear conversation with his gerald ford, ronald reagan and george h.w. bush. in washington, d.c., listen to 90.1 fm and c-span@radio.org. an event yesterday hosted by the bipartisan center here in washington. panelists from both sides of the

university showed how both republican and democratic parties have clearly become more divided into conservative and liberal camps. this is just under 90 minutes. good morning. my name is emil frankel. i'm a visiting scholar here. normally i focus on transportation and f infrastructure issues. my role this morning is to welcome all of you to this conversation about the vanishing republican moderate. i do so on behalf of the

president of the bipartisan policy center and our colleagues at bbc. i want to -- i know there are lots of really important, famous, powerful people in this room. some vanishing, to be sure. but i do want to acknowledge two people. first of all, welcome congressman mickey edwards of oklahoma, now with the aspen institute. and a regular member here, senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center dan glickman. i also want to acknowledge and hope he will participate actively ron brownstein and ron has written a great deal about the issues we'll be talking about today. i'm very pleased that he was able to be here and join us. as you know, bipartisan policy center was established five years ago, building on the work in the national commission of energy policy. it was founded by four former

senate majority leaders, howard baker, george mitchell, bob dole, and tom daschle, who believe that while there's a critical place in the making of public policy for partisanship and differing views and values, all of whom were certainly on the barricades, fighting for the things they believed in and for their parties. but they also believed and practiced that we had to be able, as they had been, to shape and negotiate solutions to tough and critical national issues across partisan, ideological, regional and economic lines. i should mention, incidentally -- some of you are aware of it. some of you may have been there. about a month ago we honored senators baker and dole for a combined century of service to america. and as a result, i think some of you or all of you, hopefully, have some material about a

fellowship program that's been established in honor of senators baker and dole and their service, honoring their commitment to public service, to their leadership, to their integrity. we've established here the baker/dole leadership program that will enable talented individuals to work with experienced policy makers at bbc. we'll be happy to share any more information with you. bbc has been dedicated to these principles that were so effectively carried out by these four extraordinary american leaders. we've done so in energy, building on the work, as i said, on the national commission security policy, health, housing, homeland security, institutional reform, the democracy project, which is sponsoring this event. and, of course, i'm sure all of you are aware of the extraordinary work done by -- led by senator pete dimenchi on

fiscal and economic policy, our so-called debt reduction task force. our conversation this morning, as i mentioned, is part of bbc'. in a moment i'll introduce my colleague, john fortier who directs the panel and we'll moderate this. as the invitation notes, and as john will describe, this event will be followed, i'm not sure we have a date for this yet, june 20 -- june 20. thank you. on the vanishing moderate democrat, and he's here. and obviously secretary glickman has the same passionate interest as many in this room do with the subject today. but today we're talking about what's happened within the republican party over the last five decades.

and while my role at bpc as i mentioned in my career for almost 25 years now has been largely devoted to transpatient policy and management, many of you know i have a personal interest in this subject. 50 years ago a group of us came together to form the ripon society. lee will talk later. several of our cleeolleagues arn this room and i welcome them. it's our 50-year anniversary if that's the right word. our purpose in founding thes so was to provide vision, intellectual rigor and stimulus to a reformed agenda within the republican party as the group on which it was modeled had done and was doing at the time for britain's conservative party. we shared, i think it's fair to say, a taste for moderation and pragmatism and a deep compliment to the principles of equal

rights for all americans chon the republican party had been founded. of course, over the last four or five decades and particularly, i think, in the last 20 years or so things have not exactly developed -- pardon me -- within the republican party as we would have imagined. as jeff, also on the panel wrote in his book and will discuss in a moment there were many tactical, organizational and personal reasons that explain the dominant dynamics of republicanism over this period. i believe as well, and i'm sure we'll talk about it, there were broad social demographic and political trends that developed in the last half of the 20th century and the first years of this century that we neither anticipated nor foresaw in 1962. and all of this makes for a story with very deep personal resonance. to me. but i believe also a fundamental, historic significance to all americans. and i know it's a story that

this panel will explore. with that, john. thank you. >> thank you, emil and thank you for being here. we're blessed with a wonderful panel. as emil mentioned, we'll do is series on the disappearing republican. we're putting out a report on redistricting that's gone on in this cycle but a lot of that has to do with looking at districts and who holds them and whether republicans can hold pretty democratic districts or democrats can hold pretty republican districts. the simple -- the simple headline of this is that the fewer and fewer on both sides of the aisle, and just to give you a little bit of background, the beginning of the decade there were seven republicans who held, by our definition a pretty democratic district, and they happened to be, moderate voting records.

by the end of the decade, there was one. when you come to the event on june 20th, we'll have more full statistics on democrats as well, but i think the story is perhaps a slight lag behind, but certainly moving in the same direction with just a landful, i think, after this election, who will hold districts that are very different at the presidential level and be able to hold them as someone from connecticut republican or a -- a conservative, or democrat representing a republican state in a -- that is out of sorts with their particular philosophy. let me troupe the panintroduce . introductory questions allowing remarks, conversation among the panel and then go to the audience. i will start actually at the end with jeff and do a plug for the book. the anchor of the discussion today. jeff has a book recently out this year. earlier this year, "rule and

ruin." the downfall of moderation and destruction of the republican party from eisenhower to the tea party, and i believe we have books being sold out front and for those viewing, it would make a good christmas present. also a good fourth of july present or any sort of holiday coming up. memorial day. yes. so let's, jeff cabaservice is the author a his totorian and author of an interesting book on kingman brewster, the president of yale entitled "the guardians" the circle and rides of the liberal establishment. he has taught at yale and writes widely in popular press as well and as i mentioned, this is the fruit of his work of the last several years. lee huebner founding father of the ripon society. speechwriter for president richard nixon and former

publicer of the international herald-tribune add the director of the gw school of media and public affairs. then i'm going to turn to steve hayward, who my colleague at american enterprises institute. i was there for many years, is an expert on many issues, environmental included but also a historian and political scientist with a background in ronald reagan. written several books on the presidency of ronald reagan and perhaps will provide a somewhat more skeptical viewpoint about the demise of moderate republicans. finally, dan balz to my left, chief correspondent for the "washington post" author of "battle for america: 2008." will the author for the battle for america: 2012? a different title? still working on a title. the idea is the same. covered campaigns for many years for the "post," but also the white house and congress. so is a veteran washington

journalist, winner of many awards from various places like the american political science association and appears regul regularly on shows like pbs's washington week and msnbc's washington rundown. as i start, jeff, ask you a very broad question. not fair to summarize your boom in fi -- book in five to seven minutes. that's what i'm going to do. what wab the emphasis behind the republican movement, why the decline and why is that bad for america? >> i'm reminded of the summarized proof, 100 words or yes contest. [ laughter ] the impetus for the moderate republican is a, might be said to be the impetus for the republican party generally. the republican party when it started as wan anti-slavery party, which in many ways was a reform party. that lineage continued through the next 100 years of the party's development. by 1960, which is the moment

when i opened my book, you could actually argue republicans held -- moderates held the dominant hand within the republic republican partynone as the, we now think of the conservative faction, the smallest of the four factions of the republican party. the others being the dominant party in the midwest who we associate with the memory of robert taft. moderates largely from larger cities of the northeast and some extent the midwest and the west coast and then the progressives, whose standard there was rockefeller and largely liberal, especially on civil rights and liberty issues and mostly found in the northeast. but as i said, the balance of power was held during the dwightizdwight iz eisenhower by the moderates. little use for conservatives. their number is negligible and they are stupid. and other colorful remarks to that effect. and the feeling was, if richard nix hadn't won the 1960 election, modd eeration would h continued to be the dominant

flavor of the republican party. indeed, at that point, conservatives around bill buckley and william rusher, for example, were not sure whether the republican party or the democratic party would make the better vehicle for their cause. this was a moment when maybe even a third conservative party might have been a realistic possibility. as it turned out, of course, the party machinery was captured in 1964 for the nomination of barry goldwater, but this did not eliminate the moderates by any means. in fact, after that capture there was a fierce fight by the moderates to retake control of the party, or at least retain some influence in the party and that continued throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s. and in many ways as lee knows well, richard nixon actually fulfilled many of the longest held goals of the moderate movement. so i think moderation particularly in 1960s witnessed a time when moderate republicans stood for something. people like lee weren't to sort of inherenting the