i either take this commitment at face value or someone is playing a different game here and i hope that's not the fact. coming up on c-span 3 a discussion on judicial independence and politics. then former nba kareem jabbar talks about racism in sports. and president obama's ambassador to russia faces a confirmation hearing. american artifacts on american history tv. this weekend our visit to the national security archives at george washington university reveals declassified documents about the gulf of tonkin in vietnam. american artifacts, sunday at

6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern and watch more american history tv next week while congress is in recess american history tv will be in primetime monday through friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern featuring watergate. now women judges talk about some of the challenges of maintaining judicial independence when being subjected to partisan election campaigns. speakers include a judge involved in the 2000 bush v gore decision and an yoi judge who lost her job after ruling on a same sex marriage case. national constitutional center president jeffrey rosen moderated the event last month in philadelphia. ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us. and welcome to the national constitution center. i'm jeffrey rosen the president of this wonderful institution. the national constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to

d disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. to fulfill that goal we have a series of programs we call ourselves america's town hall and we bring together the best voice from all sides of the spectrum to debate the constitutional issues in the center of american life. in the next few weeks we have a series of programs that i hope you'll join us for including on june 20th david boysen and ted olson will discuss their new book on marriage equality. then a debate about the institutionality of restrictions on campaign finance reform. on june 16th we'll have discussion of the cell phone cases that the supreme court is about to decide and talk about the future of the fourth waemd the two advocates who argued the cell phone cases before the court here at the constitution center. so it's a wonderful series of events coming up and i hope you'll join us both here at the

center and online and on our website. i'm especially thrilled ladies and gentlemen to introduce today's program. presented in partnership with the national association of women judges. this is a program near and dear to my heart. we talked about how wonderful it would be to bring together women judges who are defending the idea of nonpartisanship and rule of law to talk about their concrete experiences with judicial elections, with the challenges of merit retention systems and to give you the people a direct insight into the real threats to judicial independence that are faced by judges today. you'll have an opportunity to hearn more about the national association of women judges and about their inspiring goal. our goal is to be nonpartisan and to encourage votes for

judges based on integrity. we recognize mark robinson of the american board of trial advocates who is a partner for today's program. please turn off your cell phones and prepare for a really engaging discussion and now let me introduce our esteemed and extremely impressive panelists. marsha ternus is former chief justice of the iowa supreme court. she practices law in des moines, iowa. she was appointed to the iowa supreme court in 1993 by the governor. chosen to serve as chief justice in 2006. her term on the court expired on december 31st, 2010 and you'll hear her striking story about the reaction to a decision that she issued in iowa and the consequences that it had in

iowa. justice barbara pariente has been a justice of the florida supreme court since 1997 and served as chief justice from 2004 to 2006. she's been involved with several notable cases including the bush v gore case from 2000. the michael shafo case from 2004. some fascinating cases we discussed involving dog snifs and searches and seizures. you have an amazing run and had some extremely sobering reaction tours designates as well. we'll learn about them. finally i'm absolutely honored to welcome judge anna blackburn-rigsby who is the president of the national association of women judges. she was nominated by president george w. bush to the district of columbia court of appeals. she's a commissioner on the district's access to justice

commission and before her appointment she was nominated by president bill clinton to serve as an associate judge on the superior court in the district of columbia. this is quite a remarkable panel and i would like you to join me in welcoming them. [ applause ] judge ternus we'll begin with you. you had an extraordinary experience in iowa. you issued an opinion in iowa in a case of defense of marriage act. tell us about that case and your decision. >> well our court had an appeal from 12 same sex couples, the 12 individuals, same sex couples who had been denied a marriage license in iowa based on iowa's version on the defense against marriage act. they challenged the constitutionality of that statute under the iowa's constitution equal protection clause. our court issued a unanimous decision that the statute did, in fact, violate the equality

rights of these individuals. >> describe the reaction to that decision. >> well, the case itself was controversial even before we issued our opinion. there was a lot of social commentary, a lot of public discussion of whether same sex marriage should be allowed or not. and there were demonstrations outside of the judicial branch building when we heard oral arguments on the case so we knew that our decision would be controversial and when we issued the decision, of course, it was very controversial. there were a lot of groups who were opposed to our decision primarily on religious grounds. >> some of those groups took out tv ads and we have video of some of those ads. >> right. the actual -- i think the opposition reached it's crescendo when three members of our court happened to be on the retention ballot, in other words we were up for retention.

voters were asked to vote yes retain these judges, no don't retain these judges in the 2010 election. what you'll see are ads to campaign against our retention. >> let us see the ads. ♪

judges on iowa's supreme court have become political. imposing same sex marriage on iowa. liberal out of control judges ignoring our traditional values and legislating from the bench. imposing their own values on iowa. if they can usurp the will of voters what will they do to other rights. three of these judges are on the november ballot. send them a message vote no on retention of the supreme court justices. >> judge ternus, i'll ask you in a moment what your reaction is to those ads. what was the effect of those ads. did you keep your seat? >> no. none of us were retained.

i'll point out only the second ad actually was on tv. the first video that you saw is, i think about a two minute video that was circulated within the religious community in iowa, which was kind of used as a grassroots structure to oregano vote on the retention ballot. >> and do you think that the ad was responsible for your defeat? >> i'm sure it contributed. you know, i don't know what single action they took resulted in our nonretention. but public opinion at the time based on polling done by the des moines register showed the majority of iowans opposed same sex marriage. they certainly had a receptive audience in terms of whether people agreed with the decision or not just on social grounds. >> how did you feel when you saw

the ad? >> honestly i didn't -- this first ad i never saw until afterwards. i just didn't really want to watch them. i didn't even watch tv during that period of time i'll admit. yeah. >> now, on the one hand the ad is factually correct it says that the court ignored the will of the legislature and the people. but on the other hand, was that an appropriate ad to run on television? >> well, i think citizens can vote for or against a judge for any reason they want including because they disagree with an opinion. that certainly how our democracy works. but i also think that it's important for citizens to know when they are exercising their vote in that way that there are consequences to voting judges out of office because they have issued an opinion that is contrary to public opinion. >> what are the consequences? >> well, it clearly sends a message to judges that in the

future they should hesitate to issue an opinion that may be correct under the law but may be a decision, a result that the law demands and yet is unpopular. they are telling those judges to check the opinion polls on the issue and follow those rather than following the law. that's a very dangerous message to be sending. it was exactly the message intended by those who opposed our retention. they said on their website we intend to send a message across iowa and across the country that judges ignore the will of the people at their peril. and so it was a message of intimidation and certainly the fact that we western retained, voters bought into that sent a message to judges by citizens, we want you to follow what we think the law ought to be rather than what the law is. >> do you think that message has changed the way judges are

deciding cases now? >> i think we're naive to think it doesn't have an impact on judges whether it's consciously thinking gosh if i make this decision i'll make this group mad or big business will come after me. or whether it's just that sub conscious knowledge in the back of the mind they don't realize is there. sure it has an impact but not measurable but judges are human. i don't think as a citizen i'm comfortable with them having to worry about whether they are going to keep their job. it shouldn't be about the judge keeping his or her job. it should be about enforcing the constitutional rights that we value. >> what was unusual about your case? had there been previous examples where all three judges were voted out bus of an unpopular decision? >> we never had a retention election. i had two prior retention elections. this was my third. it was my first retention election when somebody came into my office the day after the

election and asked me how much of the vote did you get? and i had forgotten that i was on the ballot. that's how, how much they were just, you know, they were just not controversial. >> and remind the audience the merit selection of the retention system is a nonpartisan system. you were selected because of your abilities not because of your politics. >> right. the intent of a merit selection which is known as the missouri plan and florida has the same plan is that a nonpartisan commission composed of lay persons and educated persons, licensed attorneys interview applicants and based on the applicant's professional qualifications, integrity and character choose the three most highly qualified individuals and those names are then sent to an appointing authority in iowa, that's the governor. the governor has 30 days to appoint the person, appoint a new judge from among those three

nominees. the intent is to take politics out of the appointment process and then the retention election is a way to involve voters and give them an opportunity to remove judges, you know, mistakes can be made and not with standing the merit based commission system if a judge proves unfit or becomes unfit they can be removed through the retention ballot. >> we'll talk more with all of your colleagues what's changed but what was unusual about this case? was at any time nature of the topic, the marriage equality? was at any time new technology of the internet? why indict happen in iowa? >> well, i think -- i think it happened in iowa because of the issue and i really think all the money that poured into iowa came in because it was a startling decision in the heartland. it was startling because it was unanimous. and the individuals who opposed same sex marriage felt, you know, we have to stop this now. and the only way we're going to do it is to intimidate other

judges in other states so they won't do what the supreme court did and by removing us from office that was the message they intended to send. obviously, you can see from the videos that the internet, youtube, media, all that made it easier for the home sell their message. >> now, many other courts have considered the same sex marriage question since iowa and it's my understanding every court that considered tissue has, in fact, since the supreme court's decision last year ruled in favor of marriage equality. did this campaign successfully intimidate other judges or did they have selection systems that made them immune to those pressures. >> most of the decisions your referring to are in federal courts where they don't have to worry about whether they will be retained because they have lifetime appointments. >> so there's a different between federal and state judicial independence. >> federal judges do not think

there will be retaliation against them for making a decision that's correct under the law yet unpopular. certainly gives them some freedom to make those decisions without having to worry about their own career. and, yes, that's probably a significant difference. >> what is the solution to the experience that you underwent? what is a better system of appointing state court judges and might iowa adopt? >> i think that before one discusses what is the best system for choosing judges or retaining judges, citizens need to ask themselves what kind of court they want. do they want a court that makes decisions under the law that upholds the rule of law. or do they want a decision or a court that makes decisions based on who is the most popular, who has the most money, who shouts the loudest? and so, once you make that decision, whether you want a court that makes political

decisions or makes judicial decisions based on the rule of law then i think you look to a system that minimizes politics getting in. it minimizes the opportunity for politics to get in the system. no system is immune from politics. there's no perfect system that can guard against politics coming into judicial selection and retention. the only way that will stay out is for voters to demand that the systems remain nonpolitical. >> are voters likely to >> we're trying to educate them on the impact of their votes. the voters in iowa were sending a message to judges we want you to behave like politicians. we want to you test the winds. and go with public opinion.

we don't care that it's correct under the law. or another big component of course one iowa was that we violated god's will by ruling the way we did and so the message there is, i guess, i should have checked the bible or checked with my, the priest in my church to ask how i should vote rather than checking the iowa constitution in our long years of case law which, in fact, were consistent with our decision. >> you've warned in fact voters should not turn judges into theologians in robes or politicians in robes. >> i don't think they should. that's voters choice. they can do that. >> you now have the opportunity to speak and write about the importance of judicial independence. what do you tell voters when you try to persuade them not to turn judgeses into politicians in robes. >> the rule of law is what

distinguishes our democracy and from other forms of government. and we have to be willing to uphold the rule of law even when it upholds the rights of others. others whom we may disagree with. if the law doesn't protect everybody, if the law depends on who is standing in front of a judge then we don't have mutual decision-making, we don't have fair and impartial judges and we can't say we're a society governed by the rule of law. >> well said. thank you very much. i think that deserves a round of applause. [ applause ] >> we'll return to these important questions in a moment but i want to turn to justice pariente. you are no stranger to controversy. as we discussed you decided bush v gore and terry shiavo case but a 2012 case involving an amendment to the affordable care

act that your court rejected and got a lot of heat. what was the amendment and what did you hold? >> first of all, i must say that 2010 with what in iowa was a bellwether year and as you all may recall the health care, affordable health care act, obamacare had passed, and a lot of controversy about it. in our state we have the way of amending the state constitution by legislative initiative or citizen initiative. there was a legislative initiative to put on the ballot an amendment that would have voters say yes or no we are for obamacare or against it. and that's their prerogative. the only issue that the florida supreme court deals with is whether the ballot summary is

misleading. and in this case the ballot summary had talked about that if you voted for this amendment which was against obamacare you would eliminate waiting times for doctor visits. that was essentially it. when it came before us, each side -- they both conceded it was misleading but they wanted to us rewrite the ballot summary, the majority five of us said we didn't have that power. the irony was by 2012 a new amendment had been proposed which had already been approved. but what happened was my view is right after the iowa election and emboldened by that, we had immediate signs that there were three justices that were for merit retention, myself and two of my colleagues and these groups, partisan groups, special interest groups were going to

run a campaign to take us out of office. just like justice ternus i had been on the court since 1998. i had gone through two prior merit retention elections, and this would have been -- as a supreme court justice, one as an appellate j-i've bean lawyer -- i'm now 41 years out of gw so although we know each other we're not contemporaries although i would have loved to be. the retention, i know, pennsylvania snois not a retent state. the idea is you're on the what not that you did something wrong, it's not at that recall. you're just on the ballot every six years and the best we can tell check to see as justice ternus said if the judge has violated ethical standards or integrity or is not hard-working or is being political. it's a chance for the voters.

the problem is that there's a low level of knowledge about why the judges are even on the ballot because, again, under our federal system what did the founding fathers do but put life tenure to avoid judges being beholden to the will of the king, the will of those in power. so, our election was not really about a single decision. it was about 16 years of just saying we had ruled in ways that were against the mainstream, against popular opinion and that type of situation. so we didn't have a hot button issue. but nevertheless we had a very vigorous campaign to oppose the justices. we made a decision different than iowa seeing what happened is that the justices were not going to just let this happen.

so, we had ways to organize again judges are very restricted to try to educate the voters on what was at stake. and that continued over really a two year period. >> let's see the ad which as you said raised several issues and then talk about your response. >> this is a compilation of what ran. >> a mixed tape. >> yes. >> let's take a look. >> we'll try again with the volume. >> one more was a criminal case. >> in a parking lot like this one, a woman 38 years old a victim of two horrendous

attacks, justin pariente and peggy coincidence and judge lewis threw out a technicality. they wanted to give this killer another chance. a world without judicial access. [ inaudible ] >> the rule of law still matters and the constitution still means what it has always meant not what some judge thinks it should be. >> imagine a world -- >> have some of the most activist judges in the world. [ inaudible ] >> no more judges playing politics. >> and compromising. [ inaudible ] >> there are dark clouds. >> the court system is the last

best hope. >> these justices have opposed patients rights, property rights, education and fair elections. pariente, quince and lewis, tell them to stop judicial activism. ♪ >> health care reform, with a new health care reform law. gave washington more control over our health care and will cost trillions. most americans 0 points. that's why many states like ohio gave the citizen the right to vote against it not florida. our own supreme court denied ouring right to choose for ourselves. shouldn't our courts protect our right to choose? you be the judge.

youbethejudgefl.com and you be the judge. >> what you see and i think this is important for the viewers is you hear some of the same buzz words being used. judicial activism. legislating from the bench. being against property rights. or different rights. the right to vote. and so these are the buzz words that are meant to upset citizens, that somehow courts are acting in their own self-interest and against the interests of americans, of our citizens. and so that was in the last ad which was paid for by americans for prosperity, which is the koch brothers group and others ran on the internet and that has been a very successful tool, the social media.

you asked about what's changed. you know, 16 years ago social media was virtually non-existent. social media is a very powerful tool now to get to constituencies that have that ability to get their message out. >> so describe effect of these ads. ad said people should call you and say they posed judicial activism. how many called you? >> i don't know. we have a pretty good system. we blaernd it after bush v gore we didn't want calls to our offices. we ended up in florida not only having different groups opposing us but by october the republican party of florida had come out against us, using a decision -- the first decision was called nixon versus florida and it had to do with an issue of rights of constitutional rights to representation but it had been a

2003 decision. we were now in 2012. so what we had was dredging up a case -- we didn't let somebody out of pry son, tissue was they were going to get a new trial. and that was used as if, you know, because this issue of being soft on crime, again is another theme protecting constitutional rights. in the end, and i say the republican party, it would be just as bad if it was the democratic party coming out in a in nonpartisan state for or against judges that was the whole reason in our state that judges became nonpartisan. but what i believe is what happened is with our ability to organize and get our message out to the citizens, we were overwhelmingly retained. in other words, we were -- our percentages were excellent, i believe, and it was excellent

across all party lines that citizens properly informed did not want to transform the court into a power grab for one governor or one side or the other. they recognized separation of powers, checks and balances, everything that the constitutional center wants to emphasize, they appreciate judges have to, cannot be intimidated in making a decision that is right on facts and the law but may be wrong on the political or popularity poll of the day. >> this is the most exciting and inspiring constitutional news i've heard this week. so tell us how precisely were you able to launch a campaign? >> this is a very difficult thing. we heard a lot about campaign finance and campaign reform. it is a particularly problematic issue for the judiciary because judges are not there to raise money. we're prohibited from raising

money. at least in the state of florida and i think in other merit retention states. so committees have to form to assist you. those are going to be lawyers. lawyers that may appear before you. that's why we're so pleased to have the american board of trial advocates which is a bipartisan, nonpartisan organization of lawyers understanding the threat. it's not about being for business, against business, for consumers, against consumers. it's about judges who when everyone comes into the courtroom that they are going to get a judge who will look at the facts, look at the law and not look at who the litigants are and decide that case. so it was, i believe, a triumph for fair and impartial courts but as judge blackburn-rigsby will tell you, we're seeing this crop up across the country. >> how does it work -- what mechanics dose you do, social

media ads about the importance? >> a state like florida where we take a statewide ad to run for a week would cost a million dollars. we didn't have anything close to that. also we were prohibited the three of us, the justices who were being attacked we couldn't do ads together because of our own canon. so we did use effectively going to editorial boards. we did use the social media. we had facebook. i was very upset when my facebook page came up and i didn't get a lot of likes because i found out that actually the social media world you got to actually drive people to those sites and that costs money. we did have independent groups that did run ads for us but i really don't know the mechanics of it because under campaign laws you can't coordinate with third-party groups.

it is the idea of campaigning and i know there are states and have wonderful judges but the idea for judges campaigns it's really contrary to what we're about. just like justice turner said she didn't want to see those ads running against us. it's not like we're in an ivory tower but we want to be insulated from what you see on tv. what the public opinion poll is of the day because public opinion changes. i bet if justice ternus had that decision today the public opinion would be different. you can't make a decision, brown v board of education would never have been decided if it was based on popular opinion certainly not in the south. >> as we discussed you've been part of the most controversial cases under a state court. has something changed. is the polaringization worse or does your inspiring counter

example show it can defend. >> it will take all of us. there are over 300 million americans in florida. we have 16 million floridians. we can't do it alone. what's unique what we're doing judges and former judges speaking out about it because it's one thing for lawyers to speak out. no offense, law professors. >> sorry. i'm on leave right now. sabbatical. >> to understand. i mean i grew up at a time, i believed in the constitution, constitutional rights and to believe that you can make a decision that was fair based on the constitution protecting not the rights of the majority because you look at james madison he said no, judicial branch exists to protect the rights of the minority, not minorities, but someone who may have unpopular views on speech, flag burning, terribly offensive

subject. and so if judges feel they have to put their finger up to the wind to make decisions justice ternus says it has a terribly intimidating effect. right after our election there was a pension case and we ruled the majority ruled that the pension law that had been passed by the legislature was constitutional. that did not make teachers happy or unions. the next thing we see unions say who are those people we'll vote against them next time. so that's not a good thing. so i guess the answer is we got to keep on -- we got to continue the conversation. and realize that if we want to celebrate the rule of law and what's great about our country, we've got to protect our judges from politics. >> that deserves a round of applause as well. [ applause ] . just one more question before i

turn to judge blackburn-rigsby. when we met i saw you in a public panel and you were asked the obvious question that you must be asked. wasn't your court being political in bush v gore and you had a powerful response to that as well. >> yes, i did. what i said was, the message from our court was every vote should count. we weren't dictating a particular result. and that we had many opportunities during the six weeks of litigation to come up with a decision because only 600 votes that separated bush from gore to come up with a decision that would have given the election to gore. how would we come up with it if we were saying there should be a statewide recount where votes undeniably had not been count where they had intended to be. so we felt the majority of us felt that we were really vindicating the best tradition that every vote counts. so, no, to this day i will

defend what our court did as being consistent with the precedent of the court and of the state to make sure that alexandrias are condu s -- el conducted fairly. at that point we were discussing whether the supreme court acted politically or our court. it's really -- it is -- that's what's not good for someone to say we like your decision because we wanted gore. we didn't like your decision we wanted bush. thts n that's not what is at stake. i would defend what the flow supreme court did in 2000. >> thank you so much for all that. judge blackburn-rigsby you are the president of national association of women judges and thank you first of all for your leadership. it's a wonderful organization. >> thank you. >> a round of applause for that.

sure. [ applause ] i think all of us are affected by the crucial service you provide. there have been a series of high-profile attacks on judges. describe some of those attacks. tell us about what's going on in oklahoma, for example? >> well, first i have to say the fact that we're having this discussion here at a national constitution center is so important and that we have so many people here engaged in this conversation with us because one of the issues of concern and one of the reasons why the national association of women judges cares about this issue so deeply is that the independence of our judiciary, the fact that we have fair open courts that are supposed to dispense justice and ensure access to justice for all is a corner stone of our democracy.

and the design was that we would have three independent branches of government that had specific and important functions. and when we begin to overly politicize the judicial branch which traditionally was the branch that was supposed to be one that had the more ability to make decisions based on case by case determinations of the law and the facts, when you blur those lines with the legislative branch where the legislators are elected by popular support of the constituents and they have a constituency to report to, you begin to blur the roles and the functions. one other example you heard about iowa and florida, recently in the news we heard about oklahoma where their high court voted to stay initially execution there until they could get a little more information

about the lethal injection manufacturer because there was some concerns. and there was a public outcry and threats to impeach those justices who voted to stay the execution. the decision was changed or reversed or modified and the execution went forward and many of you heard the stories of the excruciating nature of the particular execution because the lethal injection was flawed in some way. we think about our eighth amendment that we should not have cruel and unusual punishment. and the manner in which the execution was carried out, i think, meant unfortunately that standard. that's one example. there are examples in other parts of the country. and i think where the national association of women judges comes in, we're an organization of women judges at all levels of the judiciary and we have male

judges who are our colleagues who are members, members of the bar but we're in all 50 states. trial, appellate, administrative, military judges, indian tribunal judges. the important thing is i think a lot of people just don't know about the judiciary and what judges do every day. until one of our loved ones, family members, friends has to go into a courthouse and that's a part of the problem. what justice ternus and justice pariente talked about and what judges and lawyers in the community need to do more of is talk like this. so they inform voters, fair judges project is a civic education program of the national associates of women judges to do just that. we go into communities all across the country and talk about why fair and impartial courts are important to you, not just important to the judge.

and judicial independence and independent fair judiciary is not about the judge, it is about the community, it's about the people and about our democracy. and so i collaborated with many organizations like the national constitution center, local civic groups. it's a nonpartisan, nonpolitical effort just to talk about what you should look for in a judge. you know, when you go into a courthouse with your elderly parents and have a will, probate dispute you should expect the judge will look at the facts of your case and not that a judge has a preconceived notion or agenda about how this kind of case or this kind of litigant should be treated. and sometimes when you have these moneyed influences from outside of the jurisdiction coming in that signal to a judge

you don't do this in this way you better watch out, i think that that affects the rule of law and i don't know. i just will share a story as justice pariente and i participated in a global judicial conference involving women judges from all over the world, 500 different countries and i tell you that they in many ways look to our system where the judiciary is fair and independent or conceived of to be that way because there are pressures that come in to bear in other systems and i just hope that americans continue to value our democracy and the way the judicial branch, the role that we serve. don't mean that judges are above criticism, because there are mechanisms for judges to be reviewed and disciplined if they act in an unethical or illegal

way. but to attack a particular decision outside of the court or appellate process i think raises some of the concerns that we talked about here. >> how are these impeachment efforts succeeding. in the federal system there's a precedent dating back to the failed impeach meth of justice chase that you can't impeach federal judges for their opinions but only for criminal or high misconduct. are some state court judges being impeached because of the substance of their decisions. >> i haven't heard actual impeachments being carried out recently. we had the threat in oklahoma. but you're right. to look at the language in our constitution and we're at the constitution center, there were very limited circumstances under which a federal judge could be impeached for a particular decision. i think certain high crimes and

misdeamnors and other extraordinary acts that cut against the moral character, adherence to the law or adherence to the code of judicial conduct. not for deciding this way or that way in a particular case that came before the court. that's why we have appellate rights for parties to appeal decisions that they disagree with. that's why we have a state, a high supreme court to ultimately resolve differences like that. we have a process. i tell you, in the district of columbia we have an extremely busy trial court. thousands of people walk through the doors of the courthouse every day that look like every one of us. what amazes me and what gives me hope and why i love doing what i do is that they expect that the system will work. everybody is not happy. sometimes no one is happy when they leave but they do expect the system to work and all we have to do is look at the media

around the globe in parts of the world that are in extreme conflict where there's no expectation that they can go to a courthouse and get resolution that will be fair and impartial through a process that they have confidence in. and what we're talking about are attacks on the bedrock principles of our democracy that the judicial branch should be fair and impartial and independent. >> in the few minutes we have left i would like all of your ideas about what reforms can take place to ensure judicial independence. judge blackburn-rigsby, is the national association of women judges focused on the role of money in these campaign? we've heard about funding for these attack ads and the supreme court has upheld restrictions on funding judicial elections to avoid corruption. is that an issue? >> the national association of women judges has taken a broader

approach. we view our role as one to educate the community, civic engagement, civic education about the role of judges, the role of the courts and how the process works because -- and there are different ways that judges are selected. some that you hear of here, some are appointed. but whatever way the judges are elected in your local jurisdictions, we need the community to understand that. and to care. and to understand why it matters to each individual person and so our informed voters project, fair judges project, ivpnawj.org we have a fantastic website with tools. really engaging not written like our judicial decisions. they are written very understandable, common parlance so that high school students, college students, civic groups can go to the

website and download materials about what a retention election is. what qualities are important for a judge to be fair, to be educated about the law, to be impartial, to be neutral. and those materials are available to the public. we've partnered with civic groups and bar associations. we have over 25 different partners with us. a grassroots effort to make our courts more open and accessible and understandable so that people understand the true jewel that our judicial system and our tripartide system of government offers. i used to have civics class and many in the audience may remember in elementary and middle school we had civics class. my sons and boy scouts learn these things. we really have to make people understand why they're important. when you're stand income front of a court with your loved one, no matter what kind of dispute it is, ask yourself, what do you

want the judge to be thinking? oh my gosh, what is the paper going to say tomorrow if i do this? or do you want them focused on the facts and the law and really bringing an open and fair mind to the resolution of your case. >> i would say just on the issue of campaign finance, the u.s. supreme court decisions were in the context of the legislative and executive branch. i know that justice o'connor, who is a supporter, great supporter of civics education, has come out saying she's very concerned about the state of campaign and big money coming into -- the corrupting effect. we must i think look at, and i'd encourage a broader conversation about how judicial races are financed, the role of public financing, and the studies that

show certain troubling facts. i think that must be addressed as citizens look at what is happening in their state, they ought to be informed about the process by which judges are selected and see if that process encouraged politics or discourages it. and if it discourages it, then it should remain. they should look at legislative attempts to change the way judges are selected which is happening in many states. our judicial nominating commission is not as nonpartisan as it was 15 years ago. i think that is -- that's a mistake. so there -- but we can't say, we can't sit here and say, well, if you're from a partisan state where, like in texas, judges are elected still as democrats and republicans, we're not going to say today, well, we think that system is going to encourage politics. i would let the citizens and voters think, well, if you're

running as a democrat or republican, doesn't that sound political? so the only thing i would love to do, because i know we started a little late but it's also live stream, if we could show the justice o'connor video, or do we have time for that? >> we certainly will have time. it's a great video. i want to give justice turniss the last word, then we will watch this wonderful video which has been nominated for an emmy. justice turniss, you have lived this you've heard our discussion. we've just talked about three different methods of judicial election. the merit selection and retention, partisan election, and judge rigby's system of a term of years with nomination -- the advice and consent of the president and senate. does the nomination system matter, and what other reforms would you suggest could help avoid the kind of threats to judicial independentance that you've experienced? >> well, i think the voters, the citizens, have to decide, as i

said earlier what kind of court they want and then look at the selection system they have in their state and ask themselves, does this selection process promote the kind of court that i want, or not? but even beyond the kind of system that you have, because any system can be politicized. and i think the systems can be unplit sized. i think citizens today have to do what americans did here in philadelphia, what, 250 years ago? i don't have the math right in front of me. but, you know, we need to understand that we have to have as much of a commitment to democracy and the rule of law as our founding fathers did or we will lose it. i think the mean message that i would like to convey to you and i hope you would convey to people in the coffee shop and over the thanksgiving dinner

table with your relatives is that democracy has to be protected. and we have to commit ourselves to a fair and impartial judiciary or we will lose it. and that is what is happening now. if we don't do something about it. >> each of you is just knocking it out of the park. is this just -- this is really inspiring. and we're about to hear this great video nominated for an emmy featuring our wonderful board member and the leader of civics education and the defense of judicial independence in america, justice sandra day owe coner. >> as a member of the national association of women judges -- >> forgive me. let's not be proprietary. >> done this in conjunction with our informed voters fair judges project. >> thank you for that, judge. let's watch the video.

>> life isn't always fair. but all of us want to be treated with fairness. it seems we were born that way. before we could read or write, we know what fair feels like. >> we know what fair feels like. >> none of us had to be taught how to say, "that's not fair." the first lessons we learn at home and at school are how to be fair. everyone gets a turn, no cutting in line, share what you have. it seems so simple. until you try to do it. because even though we all want fairness, we don't always agree on what's fair and what isn't. down to its core fairness is treating others the way you want them to treat you. and knowing they will treat you the same ways. it's playing by the rules even when we don't win because the

same rules apply to everybody. life may not be fair but the rules we live by must be. ? america, fairness is the foundation of our laws. but you won't find the word fair or fairness anywhere in our constitution or bill of rights. and there's a very good reason why you won't. our founding fathers and mothers were smart. they knew it was impossible to find what's fair and what isn't in every situation. so they created one branch of government devoted to fairness. a third branch of government equal to the others. a branch whose one and only job is to decide what's fair. it is the judicial branch. it is our nation's courts and judges. judges who don't represent one group or party versus another. judges who don't make decisions based on their personal opinions. impartial judges who apply the law without playing favorites. free from fear, sympathy,

oppressiveness, free from influence of special interest groups, free from emotions that fuel our most decisive debates. judges who don't bend the rules. junes who don't bend to pressure. judges who stand for one thing and only one thing, fairness. it isn't flashy work. nobody ever went to a game to watch the referee. but it can't be a fair contest without one. it means making hard but fair calls and not worrying that the crowds could change your mind. because fairness has never been a popularity contest. and doing what's right isn't based on poll numbers. throughout our history, americans looked to the courts for fairness. today americans still go to court because they trust the judge will handle their case with an even hand. fair and square. they believe that while nobody in america's above the law, all of us are entitled to the same law. guaranteed by fair, impartial judges.

in this country our courts are the great levellers and our courts, all men are created equal. idealists believe firmly in our courts. that is no ideal to me, that is a living, working reality. harper lee's words from "to kill a mockingbird," spoken by attic does finch, are true. i have seen that reality. i have worked alongside judges and justices dedicated to defending the integrity of our courts. evenhanded judges committed to doing justice for all. impartial judges who stand outside of politics and partisanship, free from the influence of special interests for particular groups and causes. because when a judge does what is right, under the law when a judge decides each case strictly

on their merits, when a judge gives every case and every person the same treatment, our courts are what they have always been and must always be. fair and free. >> america's courts are fair. help keep them that way. with 18 an informed vote. >> wow. ladies and gentlemen, there are many inspiring moments at the national constitution center but i can think of few more meaningful than this great partnership with the national association of women judges, a fellow institution dedicated to this crucial ideal of nonpartisan justice. and for me the takeaway from this superbly illuminating discussion is that you have a role too play in this conversation. it makes a difference whether in

communities and across the nations there are conversations about the importance of judicial independence. it can make the difference between fair and principled judicial system and one in which threats to judicial independence reign. i hope you'll go out and remember this great message, spread the word, and please join me in thanking these three distinguished judges for their service to this country. the house this week debates a resolution authorizing a lawsuit against president obama. we are joined from capitol hill

by mike lillis of the hill who's reporting on this debate. why does speaker boehner want to sue the president? this plays into the republican narrative, and we've heard it for three years, ever since boehner has gotten the gavel, ever since obama has taken the white house that he's abused his executive authority, stepped out of bounds of the constitution, and boehner said, we've had enough, we're going to sue him. and they're pointing to a provision of the -- of obamacare, of course, the health care law that the democrats passed without any republican support. and they're saying that a certain delay in one of those provisions is outside of the law, what congress didn't approve it, and we're suing you because of it. >> what's this resolution do? say it passes the house. what does it mean? >> it authorizes the house, the chamber, the actual chamber, to sue president obama. to sue the white house. now, the debate over -- one facet of this debate is whether

or not they even have standing to do so. a lot of legal scholars say they do not, others say they do. this is something that's going to be tied up in the courts for a long time. so you're not going to see any decisions based on this legislation, based on this suit preelection. just the fact that they're going through all these motions, it's red meat to republicans and democrats have been fund-raising on it as well. so it's political fodder for both sides. you know, certainly an exciting debate for us. >> the speaker tweeted this week, we will debate and pass the resolution authorizing the lawsuit openly, transparently, and in regular order. what's the response been by the white house and by democrats, generally? >> well, you know, predictably they say that the republicans don't have standing, they say that this is just another instance of the republicans focusing on undermining a president that they simply don't like rather than doing other business, rather than focusing on the economy, and other issues that people care about more. again, this is -- this plays

into the republican narrative that obama has exceeded his executive authority and that's going to rally the republican base. you know, the democrats have the flip side and that's going to rally their base. they're fund-raising on it. the question is, how is this going to affect independents? that's the big question mark and we won't know that until after the election. >> is there any senate involvement? this is a house resolution so the senate gets no say in it? >> correct. >> speaker boehner met with a number of reporters and the hill headline sums it up. boehner impeachment is a democratic scam in the hill. he said in particular, it's all a scam started by democrats at the white house, and we have no plans to impeach the president. how did this grow out of this comment come out of this talk about the lawsuit? >> right. another interesting facet of all this. again, both sides -- huge disagreement. you'd be shocked to hear there's a partisan disagreement over where the debate began.

dan pfeiffer, senior white house adviser, was at a "christian science monitor" breakfast on friday and he mentioned this lawsuit is the first step towards impeachment. this didn't come from nowhere. sarah palin, former representative alan west of florida, these guys have been pushing an impeachment resolution for a long time. but republican leaders have not yet gotten on board. so there is a distinction between some of these tea party conservatives both in and out of congress and the leadership. when boehner says he's not going to do it, he's pushing back against some of the rank and file, some of the sarah palin types around the country who have been pushing to impeach obama for some time. >> there have been news reports that indicate this talk about impeachment has actually driven fund-raising for the democrats. >> it certainly has. it actually began, their fund-raising kick began last thursday when rules committee passed the lawsuit resolution, then when pfeiffer mentioned the impeachment thing they jumped on

board with the impeachment thing. you've seen all these e-mail blasts. i forget the last count, probably approaching 20 thins thursday, mentioning impeachment, mentioning the lawsuit, asking for money from democrats. they've done quite well, they've raised over $2 million in a matter of days. the greatest four-day haul in this election cycle. so it's working for the democrats. so that's why they're still beating the drum. >> can the same be said for republican candidates? is the impeachment issue working as a fund-raising tool? >> i haven't seen direct evidence of it but you can imagine yes, it would be. in a lot of conservative districts they agree obama has exceeded his executive authority and they would jump on board. they want to see boehner suing the president over what they feel is executive overreach. >> mike lillis at thehill.com. thank you for the update. >> thanks, bill, appreciate it. former nba player kareem

abdul-jabbar, along with other former athletes, talk about racism in sports. we'll also hear from sacramento mayor kevin johnson who's also a former nba player. this event was hosted by the u.s. conference of mayors. >> all right, thanks, matthew. all right, mayors. i hope you guys are situated and seated. we're going to have a really dynamic panel here. i know a lot of you had a good time over the weekend and we're looking forward to it. you stayed on monday. for one, we have business to conduct. then two, this really impressive panel. let me give a little background as i kind of bring up each of our panelists. before we to that i'm going to have mayor ballard come up in a moment. from jackie robinson integrating baseball to tommy submit and john carlos saluting human rights in the 1968 olympics medal ceremony, sports have time

and time again played a pivotal role in advancing civil rights. nba commissioner adam silver's swift and debasive response to l.a. clippers owner donald sterling's racially charged comments makes clear that in today's society, institutionalized racism is not welcome. in light of both events, and the long-standing battle against discrimination and institutional racism in professional sports, we are taking the necessary action today to discuss the social and political implications of racism in sports. through this interstaff conversation, panelists will tackle questions that can tell us why racism still pervades our sports, as well as our society. more importantly, we are convening today to learn and to discuss how sports should serve our communities and how we

together can become agents of change in our cities with our sports teams. before we move on to our panel, i would like to introduce a leader in addressing the intersection between sports and cities. indianapolis mayor greg ballard is chair of our mayor professional sports alliance. the mission of this alliance is to share among mayors information, resources, and support on issues related to professional sports and to work effectively with leagues, players, and owners. let's give a round of applause for mayor ballard. >> good morning. mr. president, distinguished guests. sports bring people together. they bring communities together. certainly during a deep playoff run when athletes do good work in the community.

sports bring nations together. how many of us gasped at portugal's last-second goal last night? but sports can also divide us. and there can be a meanness, an ugliness. as is the case in this clippers episode. i was proud that the mayor's professional sports alliance stood with our president, kevin johnson, as he worked with the players and the alumni as they addressed this situation. and i do applaud the nba for taking swift and decisive action. but ultimately, sports organizations are part of who we are. they represent us as a community. and despite the elite athleticism that we all witness, we really want them to embody our character and our compassion as a community.

and that includes a respect for all of our citizens. to me, diversity has always been about respect. respect was lacking in the clippers organization. sports mirror our society insofar as that inclusion, that respect, has come at such a great price. such as the life of jackie robinson. it is all of our responsibility to continue the march. i look forward to the panel. thank you so much. >> thanks, mayor ballard. all right. i'm going to introduce the panelists and then we're going to have a serious conversation. so our first panelist that i'd like to bring out to give a

mayoral perfespective on this important issue is our very own michael nutter. as we know, philadelphia has a reputation of being a passionate sports town. we can hear boos all over the country for the eagles and the phillies and the sixers and the clippers if you're not from philadelphia, especially in sacramento. it has a long history of sports in philadelphia as it has spurred on serious conversation about race. former phillies manager ben chapman was one of the loudest voices opposing jackie robinson's integration to baseball. let's give a round of applause for our very own past president michael nutter.

all right, secondly i'd like to bring -- go ahead and have a seat. secondly, i'd like to bring out a person who was originally scheduled to moderate it, and i thought he would probably give more and better perspective sitting on a panel so we switched places. i didn't know i was going to lose my voice. so roland martin, an influential reporter, commentator, long career at b.e.t., cnn, the defender in chicago, most recently tv1 has its own program called "news one now." he's from houston, born in houston in texas, went to texas a&m, a journalist, got his master's degree in christian communications, has written several books. let's give a round of applause for roland martin.

all right. since we're in dallas, mayor rawlings, this is for you. i get a chance to introduce a dallas cowboy legend. and this is a surprise guest for us. we didn't put him on the schedule intentionally so mayor rawlings would be surprised. this man led the dallas cowboys to not one or two but three super bowl championships. he's one of 17 children from ft. lauderdale. went to the university of miami. won a championship there. one of the greatest wide receivers to ever play the game. let's give a round of applause for michael irving!

i think most of you know that michael is also now a personality and commentates on football on a regular basis. and he's got that personality that's just magnetic. and it's awesome to have him here. i don't know if you ever got a chance to see his acceptance speech in the hall of fame. and i know most of you have. it was one of the most amazing acceptance speeches all-time. so one more round of applause for the playmaker. all right. this is the biggest introduction i'm ever going to make. i mean, is this just not exciting about who's about to come out?

you all should clap before i even say his name. just let him know we love him before i even say his name. all right. just listen to this. i didn't want to go long but just listen to this for a minute. six-time nba championship. this man won six of them. six-time most valuable player. 19-time nba all-star. hall of fame inductee. played with the bucks in milwaukee, gave a little love there, won a championship. then went out west to l.a. and won five more. from new york, went to ucla, played under john wooden, won three championships in college. if you add those two up, that's like nine. god dog. the man as a freshman was not allowed to play varsity sports or he would have had a tenth. in college he was so effective,

they literally change d a rule because he was there. this is like a rule-changer in a real way. he's a legend. he also is a "new york times" best-selling author. has written books on history and civil writes including "black profiles in courage," what "what color is in my world." host of books. a documentary has been written about and made about one of his books "harlem rants." two-time naacp image award winner. get on your feet and give a round of applause for the one and only, the greatest player to ever play the game, kareem abdul-jabbar!

i feel like we can all go home. i feel like we've been to church and we haven't said a word yet. look at him. look at kareem just for a second, look at him. dignified, distinguished. what makes him so amazing, not only arguably the best player to ever play the game, but it wasn't just what he did on the court. it's what he did off the court. and to me, for him to be here today with these panelists, is amazing. and just so you know, this is often something people don't know about kareem abdul-jabbar. he's not an out-front person. send the scenes -- last night he took a half dozen mayors out to dinner. can you give him a round of applause for treating our mayors to dinner last night as well. all right, you all ready? okay. we going to get it going. we going to have this panel discussion. i'm going to stand up here because i'