e minister and a coalition government, queen elizabeth will formally announce her legislative agenda for the new session. we will travel from buckingham palace to parliament and inside the house of lords for one of britain's most celebrated occasions, the state opening of parliament. that will be live on tuesday morning at 5 18:00 p.m. eastern on c-span -- 5:30 a.m. on c- span. . .

>> thank you very much. my fellow citizens in the nation, that must strive ever to come closer to the ideas and the reality of the rule of law, thank you very much for inviting me to this interesting speakers club, which has a nationwide reputation. it is an honor to be with you, and it is an honor, too, to know you have a joint session with members here. we look in our civic life for mediating institutions, and when i noticed your courtesy in recognized, it reminded me of how important it is for us to participate in civic democracy.

i noticed that you have here, -pand i filled mine at out befoe i talked, the speaker's evaluation. [laughter] it reminded me of the time i was in modesto, calif., a small town for their rotary club. at the treasurer's report proceeding may. -- they had the treasurer's report preceding me. they said we need to raise the dos nd get better speakers. [laughter] it is a pleasure to be back in florida. i was a circuit justice for the 11th circuit of florida, georgia, alabama, and it was my honor to be the circuit justicee and to come often to those states and meet with members of your bar and the judges. one of the judge's -- and that circuits it's in miami, occasionally montgomery, alabama, and one of my friends

was appointed to that court directly from private practice. he was not a trial judge first. he had been on the bench have a year, six months. often, they argue the court has made a mistake in the ruling of and this attorney was arguingrd, that the trial judge erred. he said, "and it would be of interest for this court to know3 the bench three months." my friend landover and said, i have only been on this bench six months, -- my friend leaned over and said, i have only been on this bench six months. without missing a beat, the lawyer leaned over and said, it is surprising what a judge can learn and 90 days. [laughter] the nature of our court system and the nature of the of law is that we learn from real cases. it is an odd system in which we disputes.

that is how the legal system works. i know a number of my colleagues have been here to explain the operation. may i have my watch? a number of my colleagues have been here. i want spent much time on how the court works, other than to say there's an academic matter for to our professional schedule. it is like you were in college. we haveethe summer off, often so we don't have to talk to each other. [laughter] we have civic duties -- what did they call it, 24/7. we read and teach and prepare for the next term. in the fall, we prepare for the next term and we have that burst of energy. if yoo have taught, you know the books will be better, if you are a student, you will study more. to continue thaa metaphor, this

is the time of year in which we still have four term papers do. [laughter] and we have an internal deadline, all opinions must be circulated by june 1, and all cases will be announced by june 30. we are the only branch of the government gets there work done on time every single year, thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] and the process begins with applications to hear cases. they're called petitions. we get about 9000 of those every year. it is like doing pushups every morning. capital spent arguing over what cases to take. it takes four votes to hear a case, and anyone of us can put a check mark on the petitions and all of us discuss it.

we meet. the term. it takes four votes to hear the case. if there are only four votes and you think is very important, it is not really a major loss. if you are right and it is important, it will come back. there are many cases that we see that are wrong. we don't take them. because if you just do error correction, it wouud go on forever. we wait until there is a conflict among the courts, or if there is a constitutionality of a federal statute at issue. we take cases because there controversy of. we know in many instances the court will not be unanimous. we know in many instances the american public will not initially be pleased with the result. but that is the nature of our function. then the briefs come in. we have a very short argument time. we prepared extensively with the briefs. when i was onnthe 11th circuit, i was meeting oneetime with our

judges and ttorneys and alabama. i think it was a saturday morning. it was not a clock in the morning. they were casually ready to play golf or tennis -- it was 9:00 in the morning, they were casually ready to play golf or tennis. one attorney raised his haad and said, you have all that tremendous amount of reading to do, all of those briefs. how do you possibly do that? i said, well, i have four clerks and i divide them among the clarks. i have to read them all. they're very difficult cases. i will read the briefs a second time over the weekend just before argument. i have proper planning in the background. i sometimes have cases that are one oepra cases, two opera cases. the minute i said that, i knew that i had lost the audience.

they were too polite to roll their eyes. its sound it intellectually pretentious -- it sounded intellectually pretentious. i thought i had lost the audience. but i was saved because an attorney and raised his hand and said, i have a rule when i write this price. he said i have a one six-pack brief and a two six-pack brief. [laughter] i said i think i remember your last one, it was a three six- pack brief. we read them and prepare for the casess because we are prepared, we have only one hour per case. that is half an hour per side. we have been talking here close to 20 minutes. the case of a lifetime, and the justices address very quickly as if there were nine of us here and immediately interrupt to take the second.

sometimes we don't behave very well. but it is because we are interested in basically the attorney who has been with us before. their skill and dynamic know it is a conversation the judges are having among themselves. i will say, isn't it true, counsel, that you are entitled to be here to bring this suit, although you didn't have a flood on your property. i will say justice scalia, don't worry, but isn't it true -- the attorney an engage in conversation that the judges are having among themselves. it is not like a great jury speech. a good argument is sometimes more like a quiet discussion than a doctoral thesis.3

they will go on two or three days sometimes. of course, orality is one of their great national resources. [laughter] one time i was in england, sitting on the house floor in a chair during a judicial function. there was a case that was going on three days, and the statute. the lawyers in the room will say any time you talk about statute, we have rules and cancel each other at out -- they cancel each other out. statutory construction, will be- forced to leave the room. [laughter] the council said, my lord, i would not wish to precipitate

such a calamitous vents. we don't have time for that stuff. [laughter] within 48, 72 hours, we will meet, just the nine of us, and discussed the case. -- and discuss the case. we begin an order from most senior judge to least senior. if the case is one in which there are great issues of public policy involved, we know that we are required to make a decision. the courts have been divided on that. we did not want to particularly hear the case, but it is necessary for us to do so. let's assume it is 5-4 case.

it is not just reverse or affirm, rule for smith or jones or the government or the citizen. it is a question of the rationale, the principal, the reasons that you give. it is important see if we can find a way to get at least five for the principles so we give guidance to the system. if it is an important case, and let's say it is 5-4, the five and the majority don't have a lot of high fives. there is a moment of awe as we realize one of us will have to write an opinion that commands the allegiance of the american people. an opinion that explains, teaches the principles of law,

the principles of the constitution that control the result. when we issue the opinion in, say, an unpopular case, we draw down on a capital of trust and make a withdrawal on the trust of the public in our institution. it is our job always to replenish that trust. by adhering to our judicial oath, but adhering to the principles of neutrality and independence and fairness and quiet discussion and decency and courtesy and scholarship. that is the way our court works. it is of tremendous importance for you to know, for the young high-school students who are here, for them to remember that it is not just belong to a bunc+ of judges and lawyers, the

constitution, it is yours. and democracy and the principles of the constitution, the principles of freedom have to be tall -- taught. you don't take a dna test. it is taught. teaching and learning is a conscious act. that is how our heritage is handed down from one generation to the next. it is of vital importance that our young people know the meaning of the constitution, no the declaration of independence. it was designed to be it read to the troops. they say you cannot read the constitution covered cover and a sitting. i can barely do it, and i have taught the subject, but my mind will wander. i cannot get through article 1.

but you can tell young people, you can look at specific revisions of the constitution. it is remarkable the meaning that it has. but we must remember that is not just officials, the officials who stood, the judges, the president who has the obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. it is all of your obligations. but you cannot preserve what you you cannot protect what you do not comprehend. you cannot defend what you do not know. and the court as a very formal mediating institution, our civic society, has the common cause, the common duty to teach to a

waiting, anxious, skeptical world the necessity of the rule of law. and the verdict is still out. look, probably 2/3 live outside the formal role of law. -- rule of law. one of my favorite authors, and not because of his later civic statements, is alexander salsa meets and -- alexanderson hutson. important book for young people is one day and the life of a siberian prisoner. he was my literary hero. he gave a commencement address at harvard. this would be in the 1970's. it was pre-internet web sites, so i had to wait a couple days

to get the text of the speech from the new york times. i was tremendously disappointed, stunned, surprised to know that he attacked the west because of their fascination and commitment to the world. after rep puzzled over it, -- after i pulled over, i realize that to him, law meant something different to him than us. for him, the law was a cold, threatening, unforgiving, dangerous, and accessible, unfair principle, mandate, decree, command. for us, it is a promise. the law is a promise. it promises you dcan live and

speak and write and debate and dream and hope and build for the future. democracies must build. that is their responsibility. democracies must be stronger for the next generation. that is their responsibility. we just have a different conception of law than many parts of the world. we must teach this. our last security in the final analysis is in the world of ideas. the law empowers the person. if that person does not have the law and power him or her, it put a bomb in a knapsack -- they put a bomb in a knapsack or a machine gun in their car. we must do more to show to the world that ourrcommitment to the law is a commitment to the

reality of decency, to the promise of progress. and we are not dding enough. in sri lanka, over 1000 people per year spend 365 days in prison for want of a $1 fine. and you got it, other countries, the sub-saharan, -- in uganfa, other countries, the sub- saharan, a woman who was raped must pay $5 to complain of right to the police department. this is not the rule of law, it is the absence, the antithesis of justice. and the world must understand that we recognize that. we are so fortunate. in this country, if you want to get a business license, you pay $100 and get the business license. or more.

in many parts of the world, it is discretionary, they give it to you if they want, or not. this does not give the opportunity to build and plan. and have a certain amount of capital so that you could resist. -- resist a government that always wants to plan your destiny for you. i served on the united nations commission for the empowerment of the port, with madeleine albright. we were the representatives of the united states. we had many distinguished economists and reformers from around the world. i was thinking abouttbusiness licenses because we were concerned about how difficult it was to get them. i knew that egypt was a particular problem. i thought if a business needed a business license, they might have some official involvement.

i thought about a bakery because it is clean, solid food items. i wondered how long it would take to get a big greek license and egypt. answer? -- how long it would take to get a bakery license in egypt. answer, 480 days. you cannot have a decent legal system with those kind of roles. you know what happens, you pay under the table to get the license. it is the antithesis of the rule of law. so we must learn and understand it and defend our own system so that the rest of the world agrees with us that the work of freedom is never dawned. thank you.

-- that the work of freedom is never done. thank you. [applause] >> i have to say, if you like justice kennedy's impression of the english barrister, you should hear is impression of president reagan. [laughter] which we had the thrill to hear last night. if you have any questions for justice kennedy, a volunteer will pick them up. it is my pleasure to introduce a very dear friend, president of the palm beach county bar association, and newly elected member of the board of governors, michelle, who will do the question and answer part of this event. >> thanks, bob. thank you so much, justice.

our first two questions come from students from the law academy of palm bay each -- palm beach lakes high school. someone have a microphone back there? ok, go right ahead. >>. afternoon, your honor. my name is -- good afternoon, your honor. my name is emmanuel. i wanted to know what the pros and cons were of being a supreme court justice. [laughter] >> what are the pros and cons of being a supreme court justice if you would like to be one of one day? >> i missed the practice of law. i love the practice, i love jury trials, i love advising clients. the con is that there is a distance. the fascination is that in the

course of learning about the law, you find that you can always learn more about yourself. that means you realize you have a lot more to learn. >> we have a second question? >> good afternoon. my name is gavin. my question is, was being a supreme court justice your long- term goal when you were younger? >> was being a supreme court justice my long-term goal when i was younger? i think not. i frankly was -- my father was a lawyer. he would take me out of school. i was at the counsel table tendrils before i was out of high school. lawyer. i love the law.

i loved the thought that i should except of the urging -- i should accept the urging of the president to go to the bench at a young age. being on the supreme court, it was just sufficiently remote to me. i was always very happy that it was not really in my perception. i wanted just to be known first as a fair minded and always ethical attorney and as a neutral judge. >> thank you. as you stand here today, justice, a potential colleague is starting the consolation process. how has it changed since you went through it? >> i liked my own. [laughter] you know, remember, the senate

is a political body and they have to act in a political way. the framers knew that. phe framers said justices and other officials are appointed by from the advice and consent of the senate. it is really not for me to tell the senate how to structure that process. i do think it has the obligation to recognize the necessity of preserving it the neutrality and the independence -- preserving the neutrality and the independence and the integrity of our courts. and just to ask questions to try to figure out how the judge would rule on a specific question seemed to me rather short-term exercise. what you should asked is whether the judge has the temperament,

the commitment, the character, the learning to assume those responsibilities. i think the judge should be thoroughly read. fasten it with political theory. if you ask what makes a good judge, you'll get a lot of questions. pou have to be careful with that. so the senate has a really difficult position. i think the stars are sufficiently frequently rare that there is no one pattern. i think it is good that there is a tremendous amount of interest on the part of the public. but the idea that you are appointing a judge for a particular result seems to me not right. the senate has a tradition of

what it calls courtesy calls. the nominee visits the senators in their offices. and i think when i was nominated, i know somewhere between 70 and 80 senators is what i saw in their office. i was impressed with that part of the process. i had not thought about it much. a senator would say, judge kennedy, i will not be able to talk to you what if and when you are on the supreme court, but i could talk to you now. you don't have to answer my questions, but i want to tell you the concerns i have and those of my constituents. and then they would talk about whatever particular subject was of concern. i thought it was fascinating and instructive. the constitution says, as i indicated, that the nominations

are with the advice and consent of the senate. i had always wondered what advice met. because -- what advice meant. because the president is not always ask for advice before he makes the appointment. part of it might be the advice that the senate gives to the nominee, which certainly happened in my case. but i think it is very important for the congress to recognize that this is one of those instances in which there is a dialogue among the two branches of the government. and it should be conducted against a background understanding that one of the things at stake is the integrity and the independents and the stature of our court. [applause]

>> thank you. speaking of the device, do you have any advice or recommendations for elena kagan as she goes through this process? >> no. [laughter] actually, we are very distant from it. there are a number of times that i have known the nominee, but according to our tradition, you did not contact them. you would think if there are a good friend you contact them, but the rule is we have no contact with the justice, if and when there is a confirmation we call within the next 10 minutes. >> how does the court dynamic change when someone leaves and when a justice retires or a new justice comes in? i know with justice stevens -- >> michele, you have tried jury

cases. it is a group dynamics. your place one person on the jury, -- you replace one person on the jury, it is a different group. justice paul was the junior justice 11 years. arguing, thinking, discussing, mediating, reconciling, finding it. suddenly, a new person. it is a new table, a new court. it will be a new court. the dynamic will change. we are a very happy court. there are some points in history where the court was not happy. roh warned came to washington, d.c. -- earl warren came to wassington, d.c., in 1953 to a very unhappy court because of his experience and minuses of --

and dynamics he was able to change that. we are a very happy court and will remain so. we will miss john stevens, one of the most brilliant lawyers i have ever met. he and i both tried cases and we both missed the practice of law, which i have indicated earlier to you. he did not follow standards of professional excellence, he set them. [applause] >> justice, if elena kagan is confirmed, it would be the first time the court is without a protestant member, and that used to be a consideration. is that an issue during the confirmation? >> again, it is not for me to comment on how the set at should go about it.

i will seay the qualifications f judges have changed. a century ago, regionalism was of tremendous importance. you had to have the ascendancy. now it has changed and that is not a criteria any more. i'm the only justice from the west. most eople here think west of the alleghenies. i mean the real west. >> there may be a new york block on the court, is that right? >> i told ruth ginsberg i said, look, i am the only guy from the west. you have to read new yorkers, none of whom were lacking in

self-confidence -- you have three new yorkers, none of whom were lacking in self-confidence. [laughter] i said this is not fair. she said, no, we have bronx, queens, brooklyn. we need it manhattan. [laughter] >> ok, switching tunes, "the new york times" has called you the most important justice in america, providing pivotal swing votes, especially in the time of justice sandra day o'connor. how do you feel about that? >> well, the word "swing vote" is to me somewhat airport. -- is somewhat abhorrent. and has the visual of wild spatial gyrations. [laughter] my jurisprudence is quite consistent. i don't swing around the cases, they swing around me. [laughter]

my jurisprudence is quite consistent. again, i think of tremendous importance is to find a rationale or result that unites a majority of the court. we always light seven, eight, or nine if we can have it, -- we always liked seven, eight, or nine if we could have it, but i am committed to do this. as i said, my colleagues engage with me and with each other in an open, honest, transparent dialogue. we are the only branch of the government to give reason for what we do. [laughter] well -- i mean, we write opinions. it is late in the year, but you may have an assignment, give a report, and you start to write,

and every writer gets it. you look at the first one and say, that is no good, it goes back in the trash. we right in order to think things through. we circulate our opinions. sometimes were you think you are writing a big deal opinion, ought five colleagues are not convinced and you are and if -- five colleagues are not convinced and you are in defense of it. it is a splendid processed. >> if you had to name one decision that defines you as a justice, what would it be and why? >> well, that is like asking your favorite child. they are all wonderful. [laughter] no, i am not sure i want to touch that. it is always the opinion i am working on now. i think it is really for the others the same.

>> people look at the court and think divisions of issues would be politics and religion. do those define your brethren and sisters? if not, what are the dividing lines? >> no, you're both requires you to search for a neutral, traditional -- your oath requires you to search for a neutral, traditional, structured reference to the law. now, of course your background effects who you are. you are the product, yourself identity is formed, yourself definition is articulated by your background, by your beliefs. no judge comes to the bench with a blank tablet. of course your background is important.

but the art and the duty of judging is to see this within yourself and rise above it to find a neutral principle. that process is honest and true and it works. and the public and the senate of the united states ought to allow it to work that way. >> can empathy be completely excised from the judiciary? >> no. if empathy means -- if lack of empathy means that you close your eyes to the consequences of the laws decreed, that is just silly. we supervise the criminal system. you know, our criminal sentences in this country, by mandated by it legislatures largely,

although the judiciary bear some responsibility, are eight times longer than sentences in europe and western -- and england and western europe? eight times. the state of california, by former state, has close to 200,000 people in prison, at a cost of $32,500 per year, when they are paying $4,000 per year for high-school students. that is in a way apples and oranges, but there is full-time care, but that gives an idea of the dimensions of this. capital defendants, in a single window list 12 by 8 oot cell, for 20 years, waiting for their sentence? you are not supposed to know this being a judge? that is the first thing we have

to know. that is the first thing our people should know. winston churchill said, "your society will be judged by how you treat the least deserving of your citizens." so of course empathy has a role. now, if that translates into, i feel sorry for this person and not that person, that is not it. but you certainly cannot formulate principles without being unaware of where those principles will take you, what the consequences will be. in human terms, lawwis a human exercise. if it ceases to be that, it does not deserve the name of law. >> this is a question from a criminal division judge that seems like a natural fallout.

in 2004, he made the following statements. "tough on crime should not be a substitute for thoughtful reflection or lead us into moral blindness. mandatory minimum sentences are often unjust and unwise." "seven years have passed since your statement and nothing has changed. what can be done about the exploding prison population? >> i think there is a growing awareness. if you were asked to design a penal system that would win the prize for the worst system, the one that you have what at least beat runner-up. [laughter] -- would at least be runner-up. if cost is a way for us to

will take it. we are squandering our resources and spending them and the wrong way. i think there is a growing awareness of it. it is interesting, michelle, there was a commission to study disciplined by the american bar the study -- the american bar association. you think of prosecutors and " lock them up, throw away the key," the prosecutors who see the results of the sentences are very concerned about them, and they have some of the most creative ideas, i thought, for finding new systems. for those who are not lawyers, there is a problem in sentencing. if it depends completely on the judge, it will be uneven. this judge has a particular

animosity to bank robbers, another to carjackers, another to arsonists. no, there has to be some even a-ness. we have guidelines, approved guidelines. i always said the only thing worse than sentencing is the guidelines to sentencing without them. that is different from mandatory minimums. we have united states marshals as our security people, all over the country, and they will tell us they take an 18-year-old, 20- year-old kid away and say, how long will my boy go away for having drugs, and they say 15 years? the 20-year-old does not know how long 15 years is. i have told however many attorney-general, i have told everyone of them, take some of this money and put it in advertising of the tv shows and books and magazines that young

people read and tell them about the sentences. and we don't like mandatory minimums. >> the next question, justice, how would you define an activist court? >> an activist court makes a decision that you don't like. [laughter] [applause] it is silly, are you being actively non-active? >> that is a good answer. [laughter] justice, after speaking about opinions that some may not like, at the state of the union address, president obama directly took issue at a decision that you offered in citizens united. justices never react during these state of the union

addresses, but justice alito was seen to mouth the words "not true." what was going through your mind when he was addressing you? >> well, i am familiar with the case. [laughter] look, they talk about the separation of powers and checks and balances. we often use them as interchangeable terms. but there really different. separation of powers means that the constitution gives each branch of the government certain prerogatives so that that bridge can be independent and its assertion of the power, the press and it is the commander of the chief. the congress has the purse strings. -- the president is the commander in chief. those are elements of separation of powers. checks and balances mean we have

to work together. the system does not work if there is never any communication between the two. for years, i presented the budget to congress, over 15 years i think, and it is in a way a formality because we know they are going to give us the money and they know we have been very careful in our budget. so we say, may we have the money, and congress says, do you need the money, and we say may we have the money, and congress says do you need the money. it is a formality. this gives them the opportunity to ask us questions. this is the interaction the branches have with each other. at the state of the union, we are the guest of the congress, invited guests. if they want us to be their guests, i suppose it is a good idea for them to do that.

look, i have a lifetime job, the president doesn't. [laughter] and of course, of course not just the president, anybody can criticize us. we write these decisions in a way that gives reason. our branch of the government is different from the political branches of the government, in this respect -- the law and the courts have a language of their around -- of their own. we speak in a language that has a formality, constraint, limit, a tradition, a grammar, ethic, a

balance, we think an elegance that is different from the language of the political branches. not better, but different. i think it would be a very boring society if everyone had to speak with the formality and the constraint of a judicial opinion. it would not be very dynamic or interesting. the same thing with the political branches. they have their own dynamic. but we, too, have ours. i don't know what i was thinking. but i know when we go there, was it toward the front -- i sit toward the front. in the house of representativee, there is a very beautiful rostrum, and it has five sides to it. one side is, "justice and

liberty," the other side is, "freedom and equality." you know what the other side is? we don't have vana white here. "power." it was not a word that jefferson or the framers often used, because it is invoked the toleration act in england, which had religious animosity. but i think it expresses the meaning of the constitution and the etiquette of constitutional discourse. congress. tolerance is not moral overlooking. there are a lot of ideas that are silly ideas, but tolerance does not mean that you just accept every point of view. of course not.

i think it means that we have to be careful to understand that courts speak in a different language, and we don't have public officers. we don't go out and read how great our decision was last week or are bad -- or how bad the -pdescent was. we are judged by what we write. that is it. their notebooks. so we have that constraint and we cannot go beyond it. i don't think we ever showed. >> there are a few questions about that citizens united case. can you share a little bit about, since you authored the decision, about the campaign finance reform? >> the citizens united case, the question was whether corporations could spend their own money speaking their views

with reference to political candidates and political issues. 60 days before the election, 30 days before the election in other cases. it applied to non-profit corporations, the sierra club, the chamber of commerce. you had to go to the government if you are going to comply and get them to sign of an advance on what you say. the government cost first arguments that under this, the law could ban a book that comes out 30 days before the election. the dissent pointed out, quite properly, there is a real danger of money in politics, and we tried to make that judgment. society over the course of time will look at that decision and -pcome to its judgment as to its

wisdom and its correctness. of course, we live and a world of disclosure, technological change, and we will see if there can be an accommodation. but if this were a law school class, i went back and forth with the hypothetical questions just to tested, but that is basically what the opinion is about. i regret that they were wrong, but i will get into the technical reasons. justice stevens wrote 90-plus pages, and in my opinion for the court, it was also quite lengthy. but again, we are judged by what we write. some years ago, the cases that you remembered the most was the question earlier?

we had a case in my early years on the court about whether or not it is protected speech to burn the american flag. in a 5-4 decision, which said the first amendment protects that action. i wrote a short opinion, it was 5-4, to explain my view. i said that it is poignant but fundamental that the constitution sometimes requires us to make decisions that we don't like. and we make them in the sense that they are right, right and the sense that the constitution compelled the results -- right in the sense that the constitution upheld the results. the flag is a very beautiful flag, a transcendent symbol of american unity, a country with diverse ethnic and political and religious and national

backgrounds. it is a transcendent symbol of unity. if your family has lost a friend in the service, the flag is presented to the survivors. it is a moving ceremony. it was not easy for us to say that you could burn the american flag. americans were infuriated, ffr these reasons. but i thought the first amendment required it. it was issued in june, the end of our term, maybe even a few weeks before we recessed. well, scores, 80 or 90 senators denounced it, on the floor, the first president bush took the week off and went to flag factories. [laughter] but that is the reaction of the american people.

you react in different ways. but i noticed that over the course of the next three months, the initial editorial output and the initial reaction changed. people said, you know, the court is protecting my constitution, the constitution has to have relevance in your runtime. and this is the right of speech that we have now. my children were living in california at the time and i was visiting them. i met the boys for breakfast at the international house of pancakes are something. a young man came over and said, are you justice kennedy? i thought, oh, here is a c-span and some that -- here is a c- span insomniac. [laughter] but he said, you know, i am a

civil practitioner, i practice in a small town in northern california. he said, the reason i am there is my dad. i lost my mom some years ago, and my dad never comes to the office. he said, i had a very busy office and a very busy day, and my dad comes in with the san francisco chronicle reported your decision and slams it and says, you should be ashamed to be a lawyer. and he said, there was a reason for that. he said my dad was a prisoner of war in germany, and the prisoners used to get little pieces of cloth and it would make a little flag, red, white, blue. the guards would find it and taken away. he said, that generation, the john stevens generation that

wrote the dissent, were incensed about your case. he said, i did not know what to do with my dad. he said i ggve him a copy of your opinion. he said, three days later, my dad came by and said, you can be proud to be a lawyer. that is a reasoned, thoughtful, respective reaction to a case that has certain difficulties that we might not have expected and that we might not like in all steps, but that is the way we operate. -pi see my time is going by, bui will just may be mentioned, not long ago, maybe four, five years ago, the chief justice came to washington.

it had almost a shakespearean tragedy where the heir apparent shot his father and turned the gun on himself. then, within weekssit was discovered that the legislature had absconded with public funds, and the government was being run by this chief justice and his colleagues. then there was an assassination attempt on the supreme court, and four officers and staff members of the court were killed. this judge was in washington, d.c., in the state departmeet. asked if i would visit because of my interest in civic affairs. i did, i met the judge. he was a wonderful man. judges check each other out. [laughter]

he had the requisite temperament and detachment and quiet, thoughtful way about him. and when he left, he said, it is very important to the world that you're court keeps doing what it is doing. that was a nice thing for the guest to tell the host, and i told my colleagues. but as he left, it occurred that we don't do enough, none of us do enough and we must do more. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> c-span, our public affairs content is >> c-span, our public affairs