interest for this court to know this was a new judge, only on 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 try to take advantage of 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?

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 have the 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 you have taught, you know the books will be better, if you are a student, you will study more. to continue that metaphor, this is the time of year in whi 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. there is not a lot of friendly 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 would 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 on the 11th circuit, i was meeting one time with our judges and attorneys 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 hand 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 cases. 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 can 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. the english are horrified. 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 barrister mention that 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. so the presiding judge said, the statutory construction, will be forced to leave the room. [laughter] the council said, my lord, i would not wish to precipitate such a calamitous events. we don't have time for that stuff. [laughter] after the case is argued, 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 bunch 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 don't revere. 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 can 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 the law is a commitment to the reality of decency, to the promise of progress. and we are not doing enough. in sri lanka, over 1000 people per year spend 365 days in prison for want of a $1 fine.

. .

>> i served on the united states commission for the empowerment for the poor with madeline albright. we had not many lawyers and reformers from around the world i thought of a bakery. it should be clean. 482 days, 22 government officials. h it's the rule of law.

we must learn and understand and defend our own system ss that the rest of the world agrees with us is never done. thank you. >> i do have to say if you like

his impression of the english bar is center, you should hear his impression of president reagan. if you have any other questions for justice kennedy, please hold them up. a volunteer will pick them up. it's my pleasure to introduce, a very dear friend. [applause] >> our first two questions come from students at a high school.

jo i've always been interested in becoming a supreme court justice one day. i want to know what the pros and cons are >> i mission the practice of law and advicing clients there's a distance. in the course of learning about law, you can always learn more about yourself. that means, you have a lot more to learn. >> i believe we have a second

question. >> good morning. my question is was being a supreme court justice your long term goal when you were younger? >> my father was a lawyer. he would take me out of school for trial. it was just assumed, i'd be a lawyer. i loved the law. i felt i should accept the origin of the president to go to the bench at a young age. being a supreme court was remote to me it was not in my

perception. >> thank you. a potential colleague is starting the confirmation process how has the process changed since you went through it? the senate is a political body. they have to act in a political way.

there was no need to tell the senate how to structure that process preserving the integrity of our court. just to ask questions it is whether the judge has the temperment, commitment, character and learning

sufficiently rare. but there's no one pattern. and i think it is good that there's a tremendous amount of interest on the part of the public the idea that you you are appointing a judge for the sufficient period the nominee visits the senators in their offices. they had seen somewhere between

70-80 senators in their offices. >> i was impressed about that process then they would open up on the particular subject. >> i thought that was fascinated and instructive. >> they indicated that the nominations are with the advice and consent of the senate. the president doesn't always ask for advice from the congress or senate it may be

the advice given to the nominee, which would certainlyly happen in my case. it's very important to recognize that one of those instances in which there is a dialogue among the two branches of the government. >> do you have any advice as elana go through process? >> no.

there's a number of times i have known the nominees. we do not contact them, when you think of them as a good friend. we have no contact with the justice if and when there's a confirmation, we call within the next 10 minutes. how does the court dynamic change when someone leaves or a new justice comes in. i know we are losing justice stephens. >> you've tried jury cases, you replace one american, it's a different group.

it will be a new court. in the court because of his experience and personality, we are a very happy court. i'm sure we will miss john stevens. one of the most brilliant lawyers. he and i both tried cases and both missed the practice of law.

[applause] >> if she is confirmed, the first time it is not a protestant member. is that interesting? >> it's not for me to comment on how the senate should go about evaluating this nominee. >> i will say that the qualifications have changed over time.

it's of tremendous importance. >> i see they are saying there may be a new york block on the court, is that right? >> i said, look. i'm the only guy from the west. you've got three new yorkers, none of whom are lacking in self confidence. she said, this isn't fair. >> no. we need manhattan >> ok. switching tunes a little bit.

the "new york times" called you the most important vote in america. how do you feel about that? >> the word swing vote is some what abhor ant i don't swing around the scaces, they swing around me. you knitting the court.

i'm committed to do this. my colleague engaged with me and each other. we are the only branch in the government that gives reasons for what we do. that's why we write an opinion. >> thinking things through. sometimes where you think when they write a big game been all

of a sudden, you are in defense. what would be the thing that defined you as a justice. >> that's like asking when one is your faff rite child. they are all wonder fult. it's always the opinion i'm working on now that's the hard one. >> people look at the court and think division also be based on politics or religion. do you find those issues what divides you? >> no. your oath requires you to search for a neutral,

traditional principal. articulated by your background. no judge comes to the bench of course, your background is important. the senate ought to allow it to work that way. >> t ask ethicasj be exercised?

>> no. good that means you close your eyes to the consequences to the law's decree. that's just silly. than sentences? england and western europe. 8 times. they have close to 200,000 people in prison at a cost of

32,500 a year. jy 12 ask 8 cell for yes question zay people should know. church hillsaid, your i jo you

can't put aside principals without being afair >> you just sort of spoke about the second part of that quote.

nothing has changed in 7 years, what can be done. there's a growing awareness in you were asked to design a penal system that would win the prize, the one you've got would at leevet be runner up. >> i mentioned cost. if cost is a way for us to ack i think there is a growing awareness of it.

>> there is sentencing. if it depends compotely june the judge, it's go toe be

that's different it's hard to take an 18-year-old away and his mom says, how long does my boy have to go away? they say 15 years. a 20 yee old doesn't know how long 15 years is. take some of this money and put it in the advicing of the tv shows and books young people read and tell them about these send enses. and we don't like mandatory minimums mple >> how would you define an activist court.

>> a court that makes a decision you don't like. >> it depends on who you are. >> that's a good answer. >> at the speaking of opinions that someone may not like. president obama directly took issue with a decision you onored. we always look to see how you react. the other justice seemed to mouth the words to president obama "foig we off ken use them

ooze interscommangable zemples. it gives each branch of the government ser >> what could we put them in if there's into any communication. >> and in the formality, we know they are going to give

ause a lieutenant of they say do you need the money. yes, we do it's a court

decision. we write these decisions in a way that gives reason. our branch of the government is different in this respect. an pyick, balance, el against that's different from the bath louk joy think it would be a very schmidt i

>> i don't know what others think, but you noy know when we gom there and luns the front. >> it's not writing to your nine latrors.

>> i think it expresses the meaning of the constitution >> there's a lot of ideas you qun front that are silly hie deals. we have to be squareful to answer that courts smeek in a different language.

we are judged by what we write. >> in some cases 60 days. and other cases are different. the si era club and chamber of

congress. we thought there were serious problems with that. we could try to make that judgment. society over the course of time will make a look at that decision. and come to its judgment just like a world of change. if that's where a law school class, we have them back and forth and put out hypothetical

questions. i row gret that they are wrong. and the opinion for the court that i wrote >> what was your question? >> about the taste >> i wrote a short opinion.

it was 5-4. i wanted to explain my views. i said the fundamental that's constitution sometimes makes us it's the symbol of american unity.

i thought the first amendment required it. >> well, it scores 80 or 90 senators. when president obama took the week off and went to flag factories ment you rye act in different ways i noticed over the course of the next three months. the output and reaction changed.

this is over the right of speech we have now. my scommirn were living in california at the time. i met the boys for break fast a young man came over and said, are you justice kennedy. i thought here's a c-span insomniac. he said, i'm a sole owe prack tigser like you. in eye very mime my dad comes

in reporting your decision and slams it on the thing and seas you shoiled should be ashired of they'd make red white and blow and? flage. he said especially that generation. i gave him a copy that

reflective action. i see my time is going by. i'll mention not long ago, the chief justice of napal came washington. >> qun the weeks, they discovered

>> reporting on the justice and his quoleegs. then there was an attempt on the cream tourt this judge was in washington, d.c. and the state department asked if >> he was wonder fult. he had the right temperment and attackment. >> it's very important. very important that your court keeps doing what you are doing.

>> that's a nice thing the guest to tell their host. as he left, it occurred that we don't do enough. thanks [applause] >> next, a senate hearing on the stock talks. and then the discussion on privacy. after that, the commencement address at west point. tomorrow, political reporter discusses politics and the 2010 midterm elections.

donald kerwin looks at u.s. embrace policy with the enforcement x >> giving you a sense of what the country is thinking about that moment. >> now a senate hearing on the nuclear arms treaty signed in april

>> thank you for coming here today. this is a terrific line up on the scartstree he can our top officials. to line up, the under score of the owe bada administration pame to to have an open debate. the administrations commiltment is well placed. many starts are party to the

treatee. as the panel knows, i believe and request come to the agreement that makes america safer. >> the united states will deprep >> when our review is complete, i'm confident we can reach a

strong bipartisan con senshuss as we did inn did in the mots cow treatee.

. . . had

. . . . . ready ready test test test test test

test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test it. . . . . . . . . . . . test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test

test

>> let me state that we did not get the negative ocean yailting records under way when we started the process. >> we did get it but subsequent to that, the foreign relations committed decide. the eefer automatic affect offully exposed negotiations followed by a far more

complicated review damaging the american diplomacy

>> i share with the senator. this is a preamount bell. that merely says recognizing the existence of the relationship between defense jiff arms this will become more important. that stands to reason.

you can in fact completely ob lit rate one party's sense of deturns we are agreing to keep our miss i'll defense to the point where it does not render their opponents useless

the systems we have originated as well as in this administration are not focused on trying to render useless russia's ability.

>> set me do this. it's a good discussion, an important one and needs to be clarified. i'm going to leave the record open for two weeks. the record from the entire process will be built. with that, i recognize the senator to close out the hearing.

>> thank you for being here. >> i want to follow up a little bit to make sure i'm clear in your response. am i correct that the russians had a unilateral statement on the first start treaty is it correct that the russians did not pull out of the start treatee. yes, that is correct. >> would you expect a similar reaction. >> we woe and further more, we

tib to work with the russians are offense. to one more time get it on the record. are you concerned that this treaty corrects our way to carry out the military defense plans? >> secretary clinton, you called upon all countries to help strengthen the mpt and mentioned four years ago, president kennedy warned by

that >> it begins with the cooperative relationship. there are three aspects. one is the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

we had reached this agreement with russia. it does provide a stronger platform which we stand to make the case against proliferation. the cooperation we have obtained with north korea and russia through many efforts that has changed. i remember well the quote that you repeated. the fears were once the geney

was out of the bottle. as i said at the beginning of the hearing, russia would join for us thank you. just the final question. >> if we fail to ratify this treatee, i think it is zero

>> thank you all very much the record is open. thank you for being here today. we stand adjourned. >> the gulf of mexico oil spill

was the focus of the weekly addresses. president obama announced the creation of a bipartisan commission he's followed by louisiana senator david visitter who warns against the oil leak as talk against future off shore thrilling. we are drawing on america's best minds and technology to stop the leak. we have deployed over 1100

vessels and 2 million feet of boom to help contain it. the folks reason the gulf coast and across america are rightly zee handing swift what led to this was a break down of responsibility on the part of bp and others and we'll continue to hold bp accountable. this is unprecedented in its

nature. the question is what less youngs we can learn. i want to know what worked and what didn't work in response. we know that a cozy relationship has long been a source of skern. we need to do a lot more to protect the health and safety of our people. >> in resent weeks, we have taken a number of measures

until the review i've requested is complete. i've called on congress that would provide funds and tools this we are establishing the national commission of bp deep water drilling. the purpose does to consider both the root causes and offer options of the congress. i've asked bram and bob rye by.

he earned eye reputation as a >> i can't thiff two people who will bring greater experience than the nsks at hand. in the days to come, i'll direct them to report back in 6 months with recommendations to prevent the impact of any future spills.

because it represents 30 pevers our oil, the gulf request play an important paurt in securing our future. we can only assure with zans disasters thank you so much. >> what a month it has been since the initial explosion

something everyone in washington should try a little harder to remember. i've been all along the louisiana coast meeting with those economically hit by the impact of the spill that clearly express they don't want a hand out, they want a job and a paycheck.

how people's lives have been disrupted. that's why it's so frustrated that while the year sister continues in the gulf or while we are still fighting to contain the well, the committee scharme have rushed to create media events instead of devoting full attention.

i've talked numerous times about this need. this is jft a band aid to the larger wound of the spill the greater would be for the core of depeers to work with our state and workup and extend our barrier islands with bp appropriately paying the bill. i've worked with other senators

to introduce legislation that gives us two areas. greater preparedness to address any incidents. relying a new liability act or double the current limit, whichever is greater. the bill would establish greater reserve capable of withstanding up to 6 foot waves and direct work to cap leaks like the one currently gushing in the gulf

>> both republicans and democrats say they want to decrease our foreign dependence on oil but that makes us only that much more independent. we all acknowledge that alternative fuels are the future but the sad reality sthoo they are

>> next, a discussion on electronic privacy. after that, president obama delivers the commencement address at west point. then at 7:00, your calls and comments on washington journal. >> the head of the congressional campaign committee today on jeen's news makers. on may 28, the supreme court nominee will testify. every program since 1987.

it's washing your way. >> now, a discussion on the electronic communications

>> if you aren't already familiar with the cato insurance foot, it's a non-profit dedicated to incrosing the understanding of some from the left, some from the right and some from both.

communications technology has changed quite a bit. we are here to talk about why and how to update the 1986 privacy act. our first speaker is julianne sanchez. he covered surveillance. prior to thoorks he was an assisting et or. >> i want to alk you through my morning.

i go to check a morning news feed. i run to the corner deli with my bank coord i start checking my email both my work email andd my personal server email to which my g mail he mail are forwarded. i start answering one but i want to hit save. i take a shower and run back.

then the alert i have sent to remind me to be here on the panel.

>> the con seppings of privacy. the point found in that information conveyed to the third party. who had i called, who called me? it had been exposed to the world. this is when a phone call involved talking to an operator

all the data depen rated in the process of sending and receiving these messages. congress pass i had by 1986. the categories don't very well track and the expectations order underry people have the problem for users and also for the companies that store that information because it's so

complex. if they want to come in my home, they need a search warrant. if they want to look at the draft that i saved, this is a remote computing service provider that can be obtained with a subpoena the standard of that isn't probable cause it is

a lower standard they just have to think it travels it now requires more than a search warrant. it requires a super warrant.

the ninth circuit is determining this a different way. i have no idea what that means that's assuming these are all service providers to the public they are able to voluntarily

disclose the standards are unclear. the contents about the communications you are sending should be squte. the way the statute is set up, these distinctions and where a document has been storied or whether it has been open continuing to what standard of evidence applies. remember i mentioned i check my phone gps.

there's no guidance about what the government has to do if they want to find out where i am either at this instant or where i've been as my phone checks in when i make a phone call or move around the city. is it a general area. agencies and the time busing that order or a search warrant.

not one of those super warrants like we said earlier. there's a problem with the transactional did thea we are not dealing with that here today. we are dealing with a time when third party records the storage

was the excemption reasonabler than the rule in 1986, ray megabyte of storage increase at the same price point. these are usually stored in a

way the statute didn't antisipate. this is a separate line of supreme court cases coming out of a dispute especially if the groups have some kind of politically couldn't row versey understand the people we are

contact with that mere addressing information is not just a phone number but usually a lot as more useful information has become accessibleesprint processed this plug and play we know that

vch erizon explained 10s of,000s of requests. we are operating under rules maid for a time that the only computer you would use if you had one was a box on a desk more and more interpretations are on line. we need to seriously consider

the major over haul. we are going to go into what kind of changes are appropriate. >> in the end, i'll demo some things. >> you want to introduce me first? jo yes, i do. we'll deal with social wange >> will. >> thank you for pulling this

together and for all the work that staff is doing both here in the gnat and the house. i see a lot of people i have talked to already gule a proud member we'll talk about the problems presented on an international basis.

a stat that really gets me is in 1986, a 10 megabyte hard drive now you can buy a 1.5 terabyte to story photos. something we talked about in ters of niffings were not looking back, we are moving forward. we have seen enormous progress.

we offer a web based service since i started using t it, i've only used 15 megabytes. that's the point of g mail. never ar chief anything

>> i have latitude on it. i ask share my location with my friends in a private senate work. it shows where i am to the level i want also, i wanted to focus on dox, the on line word processing system you probably had your ibm 286. you could write up a document.

this is a complete cleat this bares very little resemblance to a remote computing service. but this is not what that was at the time. we were talking about the batch processing because they couldn't afford to have that up sourced. keep that in the idea and we'll

talk about this is difficult for us to explain and difficult for us to apply. this confusion and the cost is really undermining the growth of our sifferses and the cloud. we are reamly concerned about that. they take a look at the steps and walk through in the language.

we explain because many don't know what the standards are. news publishing companies have an eenompleous amount of

interspepting when an outside provider has that information, they are going to trust what we are doing but >> i'll demo that in a minute. we are trying to bring clarity to a process that has not had much all-starity in the past here's what google is doing

this would be a cost issue to determine what the standards are they have others trying to convince us i want to first

point out that almost all of the requests we get are absolutely valid in tracking down really bad actors. criminals have moved on line as well. 99% or more in-lawen jocks it requires us to have a dedicated expert tomorrow that does nothing but to ensure that they

are valid you have a 180 day rule it would drop down after 180 days. if you have a document edited in real time, how do you delayer how do you figure out when it was last viewed?

the time changes the procedural access >> i want to point one example. gentleman hue