with many other agencies, our problems are predictable. we know there's going to be a trial with the plaintiff and the department, we know there's going to be an appeal. we know there may be a petition with a petitioner and respondent. so the universe of problems is rather well known and rather predictable. we don't have to project for uncertainties to the extent -- nearly to the extent that other agencies do. and our system, the legal system lends itself very well to the electronic technology. >> in my own mind i classify three different things that technology can do. one you heard about and that's the budgeting for example, and things that are technological, they made advances in getting together with other agencies. the second which is coming along, is the ability to file briefs and opinions and other

things electronically. which is hopeful to the lawyers and helpful to the public because they can get it instantaneously. let's take some time. i think it's going along satisfactorily, and i think that most of the other court systems you have this already in many forms, so we can plug into ours without too much trouble the third is a little more open ended and i put more weight on it, can we use our technology to inform the public about what we're doing particularly through our website. i was talking to people they do the same kind of thing, and that's not so easy to do. and we put in a website. but the question is, will they use it. will people find out? will school children find out? i want to know about this case, i know how to do it i get on the web and i tell my class fabulous, if we can do that. i got some figures it's hard to calculate what it is. we had according to this, we have in a year 271 million hits.

i wasn't sure what that meant. i mean, is that a lot or a little? it sounds like a lot to me. 75 million a month, how do you measure it? and then we tried to get some comparative figures, the white house is way up there maybe with 1,000, whatever they are, rank 1,000, 2,000 maybe you're about -- 8,000 or 5,000 and we're about like 10,000. and the inspector general is like 2 million or something. it seemed that there is interest in getting this information. and how to develop that in a way that's useable overtime and encourages the average american to find out, i think that's a big project. and i think it will require a lot of experiment back and forth, and as i said you're in it, as much as we are. >> no question. >> i think also it's just anecdotal. it may, it's just -- only a tentative hypothesis, but i

think electronic information has reduced the number of appeals that we have because lawyers who are trying a case can just push in who has presumption and immediately comes up and answers the latest cases if there's a conflict that comes up i think this is easier for lawyers than judges to file along. >> with the time that i have remaining, and i know i'm about out of time, at the risk of getting into a philosophical discussion, i have some very strong feelings about our capacity to deal with people with our current prison and local jail overcrowding. it goes all the way from our county levels to the federal system. and it seems to me that our country is -- continues to struggle with just what to do and how to manage -- you can't build enough incarcerating facilities to deal with the population, it's such an

expensive thing. and i was at an event saturday night in my own area, one of my county judges remarked to me that there's a chance that their jail is going to be shut down and what to do. and the opportunities or the solutions to these problems seem to be newer and fewer, so i just kind of consider myself in the camp of we're going to have to start prioritizing a little bit how we deal with this. the supervised piece you spoke of justice kennedy, about the probationes and those kinds of programs. are just a very invaluable tool to our country in helping manage just how many people we have behind bars at a given time. i'll throw that out on the table and yield back my time. >> i think mr. chairman that the corrections system is one of the most overlooked misunderstood institutions, functions that we

have in our entire government. in law school, i never heard about corrections lawyers are fass natured with the guilty innocence adjudication process. once the process is over, we have no interest in corrections. doctor doctors know more about corrections systems than we do. nobody looks at it. california, my home state had 187,000 people in jail, at a cost of over $30,000 a prisoner. it's the difference between 24 hour care. this is apples and oranges. and this idea of total incarceration just isn't working. it's not humane. the federal government built

super max prisons with isolation cells. prisoners, we have -- the prisoner had been in an isolation cell according to the attorney. i haven't checked it out for 25 years. solitary confinement literally drives men mad. even he lost his mind. and we simply have to look at this system that we have. the europeans have systems for difficult recalcitrant prisoners, in which they have them in a group of three or four. and they can stay together for 3 to 4.

we don't have nearly enough investigative resources to look at our corrections system. in many respects, i think it's broken. >> just one thing i want to focus on one word that i think you said which to my mind is the direction of an answer. and that's the word prioritize. fine. who will do the prioritizing? you think you can do it here? you proceed crime by crime. no matter what crime you chose you will commit individuals who deserve little and some who deserve a lot. and you can't look at it individually many you have mandatory minimums, i said publicly, i think that's a terrible idea. and i've given reasons which i'll spare you. if you want individual judges to do it always completely, you

run the risk of nonuniformity. and we've set up rule commissions, sentencing commissions and mandatory minimums. it's a huge topic is it worth your time and effort or mine to try to work out ways of prioritizing? i think it is. i think it is a big problem for the country. and so i can't do anything more the next minute or 30 seconds or two seconds than to say i like the word prioritize. i hope you follow it up. and i hope you do examine the variety of ways that there are of trying to priority i'd. and then work out one that's pretty good. thank you, mr. chairman. i join my colleagues expressing our appreciation for the work that you do, for serving on the court. and for your being here today. this is going in my fifth year

serving in the house of representatives. that's my first year on appropriations. and really to have seen this on my calendar to know this was coming up, i considered it. mr. womack said just an honor to be here and have you here with us today. i like to visit the topic of electronic case filing systems. i would suppose now, i'm not familiar with it but if we're going through electronic that would mean it's the physical document that's being received by the court you can elaborate on it if you like. was any of this commercially available? was this like written exclusively for the supreme court? the software we'll be pivoting too? >> justice kennedy? >> i can't answer that. the lawyers have available to them commercial systems for filing the briefs and so forth.

they're out there, they have some competition, there's some competition. as far as the courtside, how does the court manage it? i'm not sure that there was outside contractors or not. i just learned -- >> we developed it all in house. >> okay. >> all right. that's helpful. the -- justice prior, i noted and was intrigued and appreciative of your comments discussing your desire really the courts desire to get the work of the court out to the american people and to engage them in this. is there a designated effort? a continued effort? to the extent you're familiar with, i thought it would be your staff, some staff -- i see they're here with us. to see the two actually engaging the committee, i think is laudable. i respect and appreciate that. you may not be dialed in on all the nuances of it the effort to revisit the website to keep it

fresh and perhaps to use the term that is so often being used now, to develop an app for the supreme court and maybe there is one, and i just need to be educated about it. this idea of engaging the american public, i applaud you for this, it needs to be done. because we only have a healthy republic if our fellow citizens are engaged and knowledgeable about what's taking place. could you comment on that a little bit? you can run with it if you like to. either one of you. >> it's my favorite topic. >> okay. it's particularly hard for us. you at least could say we disagree about a lot of stuff in congress. there are elections to resolve it. we have to say, why should nine unelected people be making decisions that affect you in an important way half the time we're divided. when we're divided 5-4, 20% of

the time somebody's wrong. someone's decision may not be right. they affect you, and they're important, why should you support an institution like that? >> we have answers. and so did james madison. so did john marshall, there are answers. but people are busy. will they take the time to listen? >> annenberg foundation has whole series of films and teaching devices. justice kennedy gave a speech about this years ago, which in part led to justice o'connor developing i civics and i civics has millions of hits and he's trying to do the same thing. they're trying to in boston at this moment in one week they will open senator kennedy's institute, and what that is is a model of the senate. and there are little handheld computers which will make you the senator if you're a

schoolkid, and will then give you problems and you'll learn how the senate works. and maybe that will go out over the internet and they need one for the house. >> outstanding. >> and so gradually it is possible to use the devices that we have now to teach. when scalia and i have done, go to texas and talk to a large number of schoolkids, and they get interested and they see that we have differences of opinion that are not personal. fabulous. >> yes. >> and so there you see the enthusiasm in my voice. >> i love seeing the passion, i think it's a great and necessary task. >> one of the things we found congressman is that the information revolution has put law professor ss back into the

forward. we used to rely on law reviews to comment on cases and the law review to think about it and it would take about a year to come out. now we have commentary within 24, 48, 72 hours of the supreme court case by experts in cyber security, law in criminal law and constitutional law. these are available first of all to the legal profession and the academy, but second the people that are generally interested. there are blogs on the supreme court. blogs on different subjects. there are quite detailed quite interesting. my law clerks read them a lot. i maybe don't read them. the availability of information and as justice prior indicated, the interest of the citizen and the ability of the citizen to get it is really increasing

remarkably because of the information revolution. >> yes. >> thank you both. >> when you talk about educating the public, the question always comes up, people suggest that maybe the courts should televise oral arguments, that people could see firsthand what goes on. and i know the court has historically rejected that. i think it was justice sotomayor before she went in on the bench thought it would be a good idea to televise oral arguments, and once she was on the bench, she changed her mind and thinks it's not a good idea. i wondered is any -- do you sense any change -- you think there will be a day when oral arguments will be on television? do you think that's good or that's not good in the context of education? could you all comment on that?

>> the question do i think there will be the day, sounds like we're more or less behind the times. >> no, it's just a matter of history. today you probably -- if you -- >> reject that. >> if you had english style debate ing debating and you had a topic, you had to be pro or con, you could make a lot of good arguments. it teaches -- we teach what the constitution is we teach what rights are, we teach what responsibilities are. why don't we go on television. and it would be very good for lawyers who are preparing -- have been before us before, who want to see what the dynamic of the argument is. and it's open. the public could see that we spent a lot of time on patent cases and railroad reorganization cases and so forth, and so that we have a technical commitment. and they could see we hope on

argument that's rational and respectful respectful. when we're in disagreement our institutional tradition is not to make our colleagues look bad. it's to make the institution look good. and part of that is the way we conduct oral arguments. we're concerned that the presence of the tv camera, the knowledge that we're going to be on tv would affect the way we behave. and it's an insidious dynamic for me to think that one of my colleagues is asked a question just so that he or she could look good on tv. i don't want that dynamic opinion we would prefer the dynamic where we have a discussion in which we are listening to each other. in which we were listening to council, and we think the

television would detract from that. you can make good arguments either way. but we -- i think i can speak for most of my colleagues. i do not think television should be in the courtroom. we have audio available. and the transcripts, the transcripts are available. the press does a very good job of covering us. the press has the advantage, they know 3, 4, 6 months in add advance what the issue is they can prepare -- they can have pictures of the litigants and so forth, they're already to right the story depending on what we write. we have good press coverage as well. i think cameras in the courtroom are not a good idea. >> he states the problem. by the way, the oral arguments like 2%. i mean most of what we take in and most of the decision making is on the basis of written

briefs. the first thing the public saw that on television, they think that is the whole story it's not, it's a tiny part. the second thing they would think, it's true of human nature, and it's a good thing about human nature. we relate to people we see. we relate to them more than a word on paper. or a statistic. that's nice. it's good. in the two people who are having their case in the court there isn't like one is a bad one, one's a good one. and we're not deciding really on the basis for them. we're deciding a rule of law that applyies to 300 million people who aren't in the courtroom. that's invisible on television then when you come down to i am fairly, i guess impervious to making myself look ridiculous to get an answer to a question that i can best focus by getting a ridiculous example, he knows

that i do. all right, and the reporters are used to it. they say oh, god, but nonetheless, i'll do it. now, my friends in the press. some of them tell me you see if you do that the first time. somebody takes that ridiculous thing out of context, and puts it on the evening news. particularly someone who is not one of our regulars. and doesn't really understand what's going on? now, all of that kind of thing is the kind of thing, despite the good arguments either way, that make us cautious. and that make us conservative with a small c. we're trustees for an institution. they've had a long existence before us, and we sincerely hope we'll have a long existence after. and the worst thing that any of us feels he or she could do is to hurt that institution. and that makes us awfully cautious. now, all that is the psychology at play. you say, will it eventually

happen? yeah, sure. generation will grow up that just unlike me and unlike him doesn't even know what it was like before things like that took place. i think that's the best explanation that's in my mind. we both -- >> thank you. thank you for that. i'm not one who's called for having tv's in the courtroom, i know someone wants to ask that question, i thought i would just ask it. let me ask you about the website, just real quick. you mentioned all those hits that you're getting i know when you have the health care arguments, i understand that we're -- there's a whole lot of interest in that the website hold up pretty well? did it ever crash like some of these other websites from time to time? >> we have occasional problems like anyone does. but they're not that many and they're few and far between. >> not necessarily overloading every now and then.

>> certainly thank you. mr. bishop? >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman for asking the question that i wanted to ask about transparency in the court of televising the proceedings and i appreciate your answer very much. as in past years, our ranking member mr. serano and i continue to be interested in the increasing number of mine or thes that are selected for supreme court clerkships. those are prized, plumb positions for youngsters coming out of law school. i know there's been an initiative at the federal judiciary, do you think those efforts are beginning to bear fruit at the district and the appellate levels and some of the efforts on their way at the supreme court? >> i think they're beginning to bear fruit. and we're conscious of it.

the district courts and the courts of appeals are a little biltmore open in part because they're around the country and they take from local schools. some of us tend to take from the ivy league schools. and not that they're without their pool of minorities. but we are conscious of it, and it's important, and it's a valid question. >> when i started on the court, i don't know the figures in lower courts, i mean in my own case it might have started out i had to look especially hard. i don't now. it's just -- it's not a problem. i don't think it's -- i mean, at least in my case, i don't -- maybe that's been locked. but it seems to me, if it's at all typical, the problem has diminished significantly.

really significantly i could try to do some counting but i can't in my head. i think the individual people -- they're -- >> 2014 we had 15% minority clerks on the supreme court. >> thank you. let me move to another subject area. i know that at previous hearings, we've discussed the possibility of applying the judicial conferences. code of judicial conduct to the supreme court justices to make recusal decisions by the justices more transparent for the public. currently the code of judicial conduct applies to all of the federal judges, but is only advisory for the supreme court justices. do you have any thoughts on propose a.m.s or changes for that, since we last discussed the issue of -- i think last year, do you believe that the code of judicial conduct should apply to supreme court justices and that recusals should be more

transparent? >> you prompt me to go back and do some research but my first response to your question is that recusals are largely governed by statute. and by principles that are not necessarily part of the code of conduct. now, there's an argument that -- the reason for recusals should be more apparent. i'm not sure about that in the rare cases when i recuse, i never tell my colleagues oh, i'm recusing because my son works for this company, and it's a very important case for my son. why should i say that? that's almost like lobbying. in my view, the reason for recusal should never be discussed.

it's obvious sometimes when company a is before the court and our public disclosure statement indicates that the judge owns stock in company a, that's fairly obvious. >> two things. one is, we all have access to the volumes of the judicial code of ethics and having been there for some time now, 20 years. i'd say i have not seen an instant of recusal by me or anybody elsewhere the judge doesn't make sure it's consistent with the problems consistent with the judicial code of ethics. it's advisory as opposed to compulsory. compulsory is words it doesn't make a difference in practice. well why not? what is it i'm nervous about? i'm nervous about this. the supreme court is different from the court of appeals and the district court. and that's true by the way, with

television too, interestingly enough. why is it different here? because notice court of appeals if i recused myself or in the district court, they can get another judge. judges are fungible. they're not in the supreme court. you can't get a substitute. and i wouldn't say there's any lawyer in the country who would do this, but it is logically conceivable that a lawyer might sometime think of the idea of bringing up an issue in order to have a panel that is more favorable. i know no such lawyer. but it is conceivable. and i think we have to be careful. because unlike those in the lower courts i can't think well, in case of doubt, just recuse yourself. if it's a close case. no, i have a duty to sit as well as a duty not to sit moreover i have a lot on my schedule. i have a lot to do as do you.

as do others. and trying to make this into some kind of a big issue, i would prefer not. i mean, i would think no is the answer. i have to make those decisions. i will make them as best i can i will do it according to the code of ethics i don't want it to become an issue. all that leads me to say no, i don't want to have to give my answers if i don't want to. it's a personal decision i will follow the code. that i think is the best way to run this institution. >> thank you, mr. womack? >> only one more. looking for insight here. to the credit of the justices, they get out in our country and they speak quite frequently around the country to different organizations. i know justice scalia has been in my district already once this year, and i think it's coming back in another month for another presentation.

a guest lecturer in many cases you gentlemen are talking to law students and people that aspire some day maybe to sit where you sit. what trends are you seeing in the medical community? i understand that we're having trouble finding private care physicians? just the generalist type family practice physician. so most of them now are specializing, because that's where a lot of the money is. what trends are you seeing in our law schools right now with regard to the new lawyer as it were? are they -- is the legal community blessed with a pretty good crop of young talented minds or are there any trends there that you can share with me that would raise any concerns? >> i'm not sure.

my own background was private practice in a small town, which i found immensely rewarding. now the par dime for most law students, they think of their career as a huge firm where they specialize. and the ideas of counseling and meeting with clients and taking individual cases one by one is no longer the par dime that they look forward to. i sense a change in this. law schools are concerned about costs. there's a big argument whether there should be three years of law school. maybe cut it back to two years. which i would not applaud i think that would be a bad idea. there's a real cost factor, and i try to tell students that what can be rewarding is an ethical undertaking. not just as a way to make a

living. and i think these young students are beginning to be conscious of that. i hope. >> a lot of insight into that. you have to ask the dean of the law school judging from my law clerks, there's no deterioration of quality. they're great. and the -- i hear the same complaints from the deans that justice kennedy does. money. suddenly maybe in some areas, they price themselves out of the market. and maybe that means that you have fewer people who are applying. and overall, things like that adjust over time. specialization major problem major. so complicated. my dad went to law school he studied contracts, torts property. five traditional subjects, they made that by the time i got there, that's because there's a demand for everything under the

sun. there we are. how do we do that? luckily, doi not have the difficult job of being a dean of a law school about i have probably what's an easier job. >> one of the things -- they do have almost custom made programs, so you can take your degree in law and astronomy. law and medicine. law and the press, law and music, law and the performing arts. and this is good. this enables other disciplines to influence what's being taught in law school it's a complicated world out there. >> i say personally, because i have now grandchildren. the cost of this stuff is amazing, what are we going to do about that? i don't know. i don't know.

finally, i think i say this every year these two gentlemen are before us. having a wife that's a trial court assistant at the state level for 30 -- 34 35 years now, i have a great amount of respect for the enterprise that these gentlemen represent. it's a great honor to have you here before us here today and i yield back. >> my final question i'm going do take us back just a little bit. justice kennedy, i was intrigued by your remarks early on and you referenced, i'm not sure if it's an organization or a process like a dinner that that has been -- it's really had an impact perhaps on the staff or the court itself or those who are around the court, and i'm -- i don't know anything about it. i do know that where we are as a

nation that in some ways we're off. we're off the track. and as much as caustic tone is undertaken it makes it difficult to come to solutions for the challenges we face as a country. civility's not weakness, and so i like to hear more about it because you're really bullish on it. >> the ins of the court were the specific subject the chairman had mentioned, these exist in most major cities, in small towns around the country. they consist of a group of

lawyers, judges, law students, law professors. and they get together and they put on programs. how to cross examine a medical expert. how to give a closing argument in the criminal case and so forth. how to make an argument to the court of appeals. and the judges and the attorneys. and the law professors and students sit down and have dinner together. he's telling the judges attorneys how they can do a better job. and it's been a remarkable influence for more civility in our profession. >> is this a relatively recent development? >> i would say 30 years. i would say for 30 years, but it's been -- chief justice berger mentioned, i thought it's a good idea. it took off like a rocket. >> he was right. >> this whole idea -- we are

judged around the world as the guard yafrns and the trustees of freedom. the verdict of freedom is still out. people are looking at us looking at our democracy at our civic discourse. they're looking at our commitment to ration ailty and to progress. and i'm not sure i always see the right thing. >> ancient athens took an oath. they took an oath. and the oath was that they would participate in civic affairs in a rational way so that athens will be more beautiful, more splended and more free for our children than it is for us. and athens failed because they failed to obey that oath. >> that's instructive. i've been there for 20 years i probably attended an awful lot

of conferences of the court, and we've had some pretty con controversial cases. in that time i've never once -- never once heard a voice raised in anger in that conference. i've never once heard a judge in that conference say something mean. we get on well personally and we zbreer disagree about things. you want to win your case, don't get emotional. >> why the no. >> that's the law, that's lawyers. and maybe it's actually works better when you treat people as individuals. who have dinner ideas. >> okay so that's the general. the question is, how do you get that across. how do you get that across? >> well if you're very practical, we have annenberg trying to do that through stories, we have civics, we have the carnegie institute for

education. we have the kennedy institute, we have probably dozens of others. you get behind them. what can you do with those films, get ken burns. why don't we have a set of ten films. and the first is a story of the cherokee indians, where contrary to law they're driving out of georgia, into georgia and out of oklahoma. despite the supreme court. let's have general eisenhower, president of the united states at that moment taking those 1,000 paratroopers and flying them into little rock. so those black children can go into that white school, let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually, what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. and the rule of law means the opposite of the arbitrary.

and you are part of that just as much as we are. and so are they. you say -- all right so there's a lot that can be said. and there is a lot that can be done. and i could not agree with you more on the importance of doing it. >> i thank you both my time's expired. >> >>. >> my colleagues. we say, the constitution doesn't belong to a bunch of judges and lawyers and law professors, it's yours. some of the great presidents want lawyers, there are great guardians of the constitution and institutions have to remember this, institutions have their own visibility their own representation, their own duty. to inspire others.

to believe in the system of democracy, the three branches of government we have. and as my remarks indicated earlier, we have disagreements and difficult cases our mission is to make the court look good, not to make our colleagues look bad. >> thank you very much. i do appreciate the comments. and mr. chairman, i yield back. >> it reminds me of what benjamin franklin supposedly said. our country was getting started and understand a lady asked him, sir, what have you given us? he said i'm giving you a republic if you can keep. and here we are 200 years later. let me ask a quick question. i've read from time to time, that -- and i don't know if it's still the case, you had expressed some concern about the

increasingly politically charged issues that are now being heard and decided by the supreme court. is that -- can you explain what that concern is. and does justice prior share that concern? >> it's not novel or new for justices to be concerned that they're making so many decisions that affect a democracy. and we think a response efficient, responsive legislative and executive branch in the political system will alleviate some of that pressure we routinely decide cases involving federal statutes, if this is wrong the congress will

fix it, then we hear that congress can't pass a bill one way or the other. that there is gridlock. and some people say, that should affect the way we interpret the statutes. that seems to me a wrong proposition. we have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government. the ones that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic. >> same thing. you have another question? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i will hopefully be brief. i notice that the courts case loads is much lower compared to previous years the current range of cases is literally half of what it was ten years ago.

does the court have a target number of cases that you target each year and let me just go back to another subject you talked about the new crop. i saw the law as an effective way of promoting social change. i came out of law school in 1971. and i was a part of the civil rights movement and interpreting the civil rights acts of 1964. and very sensitive to the way that the law can be used to perfect social change and has been in the way the constitution has evolved. but there are reports from judges all across the country that the recession has not only caused a spike in the number of

prose litigants but has negatively affected the parties themselves and the courts. do you believe that our justice system loses its effectiveness when citizens are unable to afford legal council in cases with stakes involving family's livelihood. and if so can you perhaps give us some thoughts of how the problem can be remedied with more resources being allocated to pro bono or to legal aid services. my major piece of litigation civil rights was on behalf of 6,000 african-american inmates in the georgia state prison who were in a desegregated system. occupying the same space as 4,000 white inmates, it was a certified 23 class action case. the judge decided it done, and

the southern district of georgia this resulted in the change of the criminal justice system as a whole. it was brought pro se and i happen to be a cooperating attorney and i handled that case, and there's a pro bono firm backed it up. no charge to the litigants, but there are not that many of those kinds of opportunities and with the economic procession. how do we deal with that in terms of making sure that our justice system really is not turning on the capacity and the financial resources of the

litigants. >> as to just number of cases, the first part of your question, is there an optimal amount we strive for. we take the cases where we think our guidance is needed. we wait for courts of appeals or state supreme courts to be in conflict. and optimally we probably should have about 100 cases a year. when we first came we had 160, 180, far too many. the cases we do get now, i think anecdotally, i haven't seen studies on it are somewhat more difficult. the patent cases, we had a case that was two terms ago, the patent ability of dna. i read it all summer long to try to understand it. justice thomas wrote it, a very good opinion. i think our cases are more technical and the 78 cases that

we have last year exhausted us. but optimally we can handle about 100. but we wait. because we wait until our guidance is needed. the broader question of representation and civil cases, i saw some numbers in which the number of unrepresented parties in civil litigation is actually increasing because of some of the factors mentioned. the congress has enacted bankruptcy laws which are -- i think well suited to modern society. the statutes are good. and so i don't think there's any problem in the bankruptcy area. our bankruptcy judges, are just very, very good. so that system i think is working. but in the area of standard litigation, there's a problem with unrepresented parties. and the law schools can and

probably should do more. they should focus again on the small cases. not big firm stuff. the number of cases it's not -- there's a big decline beginning in the late '80s, the way we select cases, almost entirely. not completely but almost entirely, you look to see if the lower courts have come to different conclusions on the same question of federal law. now, they do or they don't. and if they do, we'll probably hear it. if they're not, we probably won't. there are other things. that's the main thing. so i have not noticed any tendency whatsoever to try not to take cases. rather, sandra used to sit there and say, we have to take cases. can't we take some more cases and -- so they're not -- the conflicts are less. now, why? that is -- in my own

explanation, which has no particular validity, is that -- you have seen in the '70s and '80s, what you saw. from 1960s when i was a law clerk, 60s, 70s, 80s on. tremendous civil rights laws statutes of all kinds of tight el 7. civil rights revolution. revolution beyond that in the way the first ten amendments apply to the states. for a lawyer, every word in a statute, and every new major case, is a subject of new argument. you pass statutes with 50,000 words, you'll get 50,000 cases. suddenly there has been in congress a kind of increased legislation. and major statutes. those statutes are long. and they have many words, we can predict whether i'm right or not. if i'm right, there's a lag you see, there's a lag, they often -- five years seven years from now, we will see the number

of cases in the supreme court growing because those words will be capable of different definitions and judges will have reached different conclusions. i don't know if that's right it's a theory. on the i did look at some numbers a few years ago. we're way behind in compared say, to england or to france. and part of it is in england, there is an appropriation. and i don't know where it is on your list. and that's a problem. and in england, by the way, where they had a very good legal representation system in civil matters, they're running under budget pressure. and the lawyers who are in this field are all worried that there are cuts, and there are. in france, they have a different idea, which is sort of interesting. the bar itself provides a lot more free representation than here, but there's a price to be paid. the price to be paid is that the individual lawyers and the bar will be ruthless in segregating the sheep from the goats.

so if you go to a lawyer you will get your free representation if you can't afford it at the cost of having him and/or her and his colleagues, you see going through your case and making a ruthless decision about whether they think whether you can win it. but the result of that is the people they think have a good shot, they will get the free representation, much more even than in england. >> thank you. and i think it's important to recognize that the significance of the work that you all do is certainly not proportionate to the budget that you submit every year. but we do thank you for the work that you do to make sure that you are spending the money wisely. and thank you for being here. i think we all appreciate your wisdom and your insight. i know i always learn something.

on a personal note, i want to thank you publicly a couple years ago when we had concluded most of the business i was troubled by a quote that i had read in law school that i never know who -- i didn't know who the author of the statement it always struck me as interesting because it went like this. versatility of circumstance often mocks a natural desire for definitiveness. and i asked since we didn't have anything else to do i asked you to gentlemen who said that and where. and i think justice breyer said why don't you google it. and i said, i already did. but when you think about that statement, i think bob dylan might have said it differently. he wrote a song called "things have changed." and i can understand that a little better. but the good news is that because of the cooperation of you two gentlemen, i now know that felix frankfurter said that. and he said that in a case

called "weinerer versus u.s." or "u.s. versus wiener." i think president eisenhower was president. he wasn't supposed to do something but he did it anyway. therefore felix frankfurter said it often mocks it. he did what he wasn't supposed to do, and justice frankfurter said it very well, "things have changed." so i always learn something. we thank you so much. it is an honor for us to have you before us. thank you for the work that you do for this country and this meeting is now adjourned. >> thank you.

secret service director joseph clancy testified before the house oversight committee today on recent operations and conduct at his agency. he was questioned at length about the events earlier this month involving two secret service agents who allegedly drove into a white house barricade while drunk. here's a look at what ranking member elijah cummings had to say in opening remarks. >> this is not about politics. it cannot be. it cannot be about headlines or

unnecessary disputes that contribute nothing to the solution. we must come together in a nonpartisan way to take concrete steps, both publicly and privately, to turn this agency around. again, this is a transformative moment. if we fail to do that in this moment, it can only get worse. the agents and officers of the secret service risk their lives on behalf of this great nation. they are great human beings great public servants, and they deserve an agency that they can be proud of. one of the things that has concerned me greatly is the anonymous e-mail that you got to us. would somebody put this up? the -- this e-mail -- you're familiar with it are you not? and this e-mail concerns me since last wednesday night the uniform division established a crime scene special post 15 at the white house after a package was thrown at an officer. the officer was told the package was a bomb, so they taped off

the area and made it a crime scene. then at some point from wfo, pbd and a ppd dsac drove through the crime scene tape. u.d. officers at the scene said they were both extremely intoxicated. they were coming home from ed donovan's retirement dinner. they apparently flipped on the lights on their government vehicles to go around the roadblocks. then they nudged barrels close to closing the post with their government vehicles. then were waving their white house passes around, confused as to why the post was evacuated. u.d. officers were going to arrest both of them but the u.d. watch commander said not to. apparently the whole incident was captured on video from

inside the j.o.c. what i don't understand is this. a lot of people got this e-mail. a lot of them got it. but you didn't. that is a problem. but you know what really bothers me? as i read this, i kept reading this e-mail this morning over and over and over. and you know what i concluded? it appears that we have an agency at war against itself. the idea that in an organization like this that somebody would create this kind of document to bring this kind of disruption when they are supposed to be guarding the president of the united states of america, we're better than that. in some kind of way, we have to take advantage of this transformative moment. >> see the full house oversight committee hearing with secret service director joseph clancy tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span2

or logon to our video library. coming up tonight on c-span3, the senate judiciary committee considers the nomination of sally yates to be the -- here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on "after words," author peter wallison says government housing policies caused the crisis and that it could happen again. and the director of earth institute at columbia university jeffrey sachs to counter political corruption and environmental delay. saturday morning at 10:30 eastern on american history tv on c-span3, a discussion on the last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr. then sunday afternoon at 4:00 on "real america: the 1965 meet the press interview with martin luther king jr." find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let

us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3, we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields, american artifacts, touring museums and sites. history bookshelf with the best-known american history writers. the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top

college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, "real america," featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. coming up tonight on c-span3, the senate judiciary committee considers the nomination of sally yates to be the next deputy attorney general. then senator tom cotton talks about national security priorities and ongoing iran nuclear negotiations. after that transportation department officials discuss rail and transit initiatives at the annual american public transportation association policy conference. and later, several of president obama's cabinet secretaries lay out agency priorities at this year's national league of cities conference.