directed to my successors and the permanent subcommittee. i was not there for the beginning, middle, or and of the investigation. i really don't know if the answer is to that question. it is kind of up to the senator. if there is enough and there is opposition, they can do that regardless of you or i find that to be a logical approach. some of that is because some senators are inclined to

disagree with the treaty. we have a very very lengthy treaty and a complex 1994 agreement and then we have the behavior of the member states themselves.

>> there's the argument based on the reagan --. i have been looking for an opportunity to drive the stake through -- for some time. that will trump his statement from the secretary of state and fatly to the opposite. they came out with an official view of the reagan administration. i refer here ronald reagan may

be because i had four presidential appointments. i live here this man and it is important that we not ascribe used to him that would be problematic to the united states. his opinion that is the fee met those six red conditions, we got the treaty, we would be able to move forward. let me indicate what i suspect what the actual meaning was. if you look at the time line in terms of wind that was actually a decision being made by reagan that he is writing about, the decision is entirely different from what steve is talking about. this is a decision as to whether the united states might consider going forward with the reservation on the deep seabed mining and accept the rest of the treaty which is seriously being considered by the u.s. government at that time. they were advised correctly by

the state department and it was in complete violation of the treaty. more importantly, it was going to totally open up a pandora's box counter to the interest of the u.s. and prevent any other country from asserting in a variety of reservations to issues the nine states had one which were very important including -- the united states had onwon which were very important. >> my position begins the discussion. out of a sense of fairness, i will give steve haniya with nt to choose whether he has the first of the last closing argument. -- i will give steve the option whether to choose if he is the

first four last. >> i think you know my opinion at this point. it is very worthy that we move forward with this treaty. they had been seeking to use this for a long time. this is in the interest of the u.s. economically, politically, in terms of rejoining the community and restoring the united states leadership. we will be able to take the leadership role that we pay.

secretary of state clinton is absolutely right. i know that president obama supports this. i'm very hopeful that we will move forward in this congress and not wait for the next. >> i would like to think the ambassador for inviting me to this debate. we thank you for sitting here this whole time. i thought it was a very spirited debate. i will end by just giving some advice which is if you want the west to ultimately exceed to this treaty, you must approach the people who can make that happen for you and point out some of the witnesses. if you are an absolutist on

this and are of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with this treaty, there is no flaw, this is as pure as the driven snow, that causes senators and staff to raise eyebrows. i would be more realistic to talk about these. find how you can distinguish them or excise them through a reservation and understanding or declaration. take on the issue directly about treaty partners who will not be reliable with their plans. or did not take my advice and continue what has been going on before the last couple of decades which is coming forward and saying that the treaty is awesome, there's no problems, everything is fixed, reagan is in favor, even though he is dead. point out the pieces and make

your best case to the senators. that is your best chance. thank you very much for attending this again. i had a lot of fun. thank you very much, ambassador. [applause] >> i want to join you and thinking our two panelists. they did a valuable job. this was a valuable and informative debate. please express again your thanks to the two participants with your applause. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> join us tonight for an evening with some of the supreme court justices. joining us at 8:00 is anthony kennedy. an hour later, the focus is president obama's first appointment to the bench. she talks about her life and experiences. then, a conversation with ruth bader ginsberg.

>> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of american history, books, current affairs. this is all available to you on line, on there, and our networks. created by cable, provided as a public service. at the national press club this morning, the democratic national campaign committee chair said the democrats would maintain their majority in the house in the november elections and that the recent reports of the democratic demise are greatly exaggerated. he talked about his overall strategy and also responded to john pater's address earlier this week when he criticized the

democratic agenda. >> we will have an update on how the issues from the democratic perspective. a newsmaker committee notes that the club is making of a date for representative pete sessions, chair of the national republican committee to present his side of the issue as well as the discussion. as the democratic party's campaign chair as well as the

assistant to nancy pelosi, the congressman will discuss why he believes democrats deserve to win the off-year elections. the legislative agenda and the impending action. he is also the author of legislation which he believes is the correction of the air force seerror of the supreme court's decision to allow -- the mistake of the supreme court's decision to allow corporate money into politics. he is also on the committee and oversight and reform. he is vice chairman of the house renewable energy caucus and of the democratic task force on budget and tax policy. speaker pelosi gave him the unique and historic role of

congressional campaign chair and your overall assistant. -- and her overall assistanct. two. "the baltimore sun" labeled chris van hollen as a rising star. it was 2002 that he was elected to congress, beating some powerful democratic competitors. in the last two cycles, he helped democrats gain 50 seats. congressman van hollen is at the center of the storm. if democrats retain control of the house, he will reap much of the credit, and if they do not, well --

following his presentation, the floor will be open to questions. this is a traditional news conference, but we will give to each questioner -- when you have the microphone, please see your name, organization, and your question. many thanks to those who have --anized to the's event today's events. we also want to thank the national press club president and newsmaker committee chairman for jumping through many hoops for making sure to date's event has happened. also, richard is doing the

microphones is an enormous help. the national press club this honor to present congressman chris van hollen. >> thank you very much, and it is great be with all of you. thank you for say -- for taking some time off and august to be with us. thank you to the national press club for the invitation. we are here to discuss the upcoming elections, which are 67 days from today. 67 days from today is millions of americans, on to the polls, a vote in the 2010 midterm election, one that will shape decision making for years to come. congressional republicans inside the beltway are already popping the champagne bottles, saying they are going to seize control of the united states congress. it is a premature celebration.

i can assure you that despite the washington summer political chatter, reports of the house democrats' the mice are exaggerated. i have been talking to our democratic colleagues, in their districts, they are meeting constituents, talking about issues that matter and are important to people, and make a difference in people's lives. it is clear that the democrats will retain a majority in the house come november for three reasons. first and most importantly, america wants to continue to move forward and not return back to the same economic policies that got us into messes in the first place. while nobody is satisfied with the slow pace of growth, america is facing a very stark choice. do we continue down the path toward recovery and a more

stabilized economy and efforts to support the business community, putting people back to work, or do we return to the economic policies that resulted in catastrophic job losses and brought our economy to the brink of collapse? an agenda that benefited big money, special interests, at the expense of american tax payers, consumers, and workers. second, the republican candidates that are emerging from primaries across the country are on the far right of the political spectrum. in many cases, they are being driven by tea party movement, in many cases, being the nominee of the tea party movement, and they are not a good fit for what are moderate, centrist districts. those are the swing districts around the country. you are finding the republican candidates out of the

mainstream. third, campaigns do matter, and congressional democrats have been preparing for what we knew would be a topps -- a tough cycle from the very beginning of last year. unlike 1994, when a lot of democrats will come up the day after the election, caught by surprise, no one is going to be surprised this time. people have been preparing, and that preparation is calling to be successful. let me delve a little deeper into each of these points. i will focus primarily on the choice, the troy is that american voters face, because they are going to be going into those voting booths and it will have a choice between two and sometimes more candid. there are many differences between 2010 and 1994. you hear republicans talking a

lot about 1994, when newt gingrich and the republicans up more than 50 seats. in 1994 the american people saw congressional republicans as a viable alternative to the democrats. the polls today indicate that is simply not the choice. when asked if they had more confidence in the congressional democrats or congressional republicans to make the right decisions for the country, the july 12 poll gave the democrats a six-point advantage. when asked if they approved of the democrats and republicans handling of their jobs, the august 16 poll gave democrats a seven-point lead. in the august 9 nbc poll, by nine points, people had positive

feelings about democrats. do not get me wrong here. i am not suggesting the american people are bullish on either party. what i am suggesting is that they consistently have greater confidence in the democrats than republicans. none of this should be a surprise to any of us, because what happened during the years of the bush administration is still fresh in people's minds, and the american people know the facts. they lived them. the american people know that the day president bush left office, the economy was in total freefall, and we were losing jobs at the rate of 700,000 a month. they note that over the eight- year span of the bush administration, we lost over 630,000 private sector jobs, that, from the beginning to end.

they note the reckless fiscal policies of the previous administration, including the on paid wars in iraq and afghanistan, turned the surpluses from the clinton and the station into a record 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. today obama was sworn into office. -- that they obama was sworn into office. they know the approach created a huge financial body of -- bubble that inevitably burst, caused havoc on main street and cost millions of american workers their jobs. it was a go for wall street bonuses, but it resulted in trillions of dollars of losses of retired savings for american consumers and workers. they know the bush-cheney energy policy allowed oil companies to run the issue will -- to run the

show when we should have been investing here in homegrown clean energy jobs, and they know during the previous administration the cost of premiums for health insurance doubled while health insurance profits quadruple. they know all those facts. you and those listening may ask ourselves, why are we going over that history that is all in the past. the answer is this -- if you listen to our republican colleagues and you listen to their current economic plan, they are telling us very clearly that if given the opportunity, they would enact the same agenda going forward. in fact, one of their leaders said they would enact the exact same agenda going forward. others are saying publicly, no,

we learned our lesson, but then they proceed to articulate the same economic agenda, the same failed policies that drove the economy into the ditch. now, many of you know that there are a lot of republican operatives and strategists out there who were recommending to republican leaders, not to say a thing. keep their agenda secret. those are operatives wanted aboute to continue to renant what the democrats had been doing. i have to give john boehner credit for beginning to spell out what he and his republican colleagues would do if given the chance, because elections are about the future, and americans deserve to know the choices they have. what has john boehner and the republicans told us they would

do if given the chance? first, he has said clearly that republicans would seek to repeal the wall street reform bill. everyone in this room knows a lot of high-priced lobbyists repeat a lot of money to try to defeat legislation, which is designed to make sure never again american taxpayers are left holding the bag for bad decisions on wall street. john boehner voted to rescue wall street weighed back, but now he wants the republicans to repeal the new law that holds those banks accountable. in other words, go back to be anything goes policy that precipitated the financial meltdown in the economic -- and the economic crisis. second, the other day in ohio, he said he would reverse the remaining elements of the economic recovery plan. no one has suggested the economic recovery plan is going

to be a miracle cure. americans understand you cannot beat yourself out of a very deep hole overnight. the recovery bill has succeeded in stabilizing an economy that was heading toward depression, and we have experienced four quarters of economic croats and seven consecutive months of house of private sector job growth. in his very recent -- in a recent report, a report has succeeded in -- the bill has succeeded in increasing the gdp and increasing the number of employed americans to 3.3 people. in fact, if you follow some of our colleagues around the country, they continue to show up ribbon-cutting ceremonies, ground-breaking services, to take credit for jobs that would never be there if they had their

way, because every republican in the house voted against the recovery bill. are we satisfied with the pace of recovery? of course not, but what mr. baker proposed the -- but what john boehner proposed the other day would cancel contracts and awards that have already been made, i used at about $216 billion. do not take my word for it. much of that work is already under way, as we speak, and canceling those contracts could easily precipitate a double dip recession. republican leader has said he wants more certainty coming out of washington, and canceling contracts is no way to send a message.

not only with that plan jeopardize the fragile recovery that is under way, but it would undermine the foundation for a strong long-term economic growth. mr. john boehner rightly said we need a deficit reduction plan. he said economists have warned that all this borrowing runs the risk of causing a damaging spike in interest rates which would cripple job creation. how is it that in that very same speech he proposes to blow what the nonpartisan congressional budget office would say is a $680 billion hole in the deficit over the next 10 years? that would send a terrible signal that the united states is fiscally reckless and we have not gotten our economic house in order. in the longer term, that that will inhibit the economic

growth, but the republican leader and his colleagues will risk our future economic growth to permanently extend the bush tax cuts that the to the wealthiest 2% in our country. the non-partisan tax policy center estimates 96% of that $680 billion will go to that 923,000 households that make over $500,000 a year. under that plan, next year households making over $1 million will receive an average tax cut of 100 feet thousand dollars. the notion that we need to permanently extend these deficit-busting tax cuts for the top 2% in order to grow the economy has been flatly this proven by their record of the eight years of the bush administrations. after all, they enacted those tax cuts to the folks at the top

in 2001, 2003, and at the end of that period, the economy had lost over 630,000 private sector jobs. yet, here they are once again proposing to redo and go back to the old policies. they should not hold the american people hostage in order to provide a deficit-growing for the top 2%. instead of passing on the $680 billion bill for children and grandchildren, we need to take steps to get the deficit under control. that is why we passed the statutory paygo law. that law helped restrain spending in the clinton administration. the bush administration and congressional republicans, as soon as they came in in 2000, repeal that law, contributing to

a huge spike in the deficit and debt. unfortunately, when we voted to reenact that provision, the house, the republicans in the house, all voted against it. the house recently passed legislation and people came back to pass legislation to make sure that 150,000 teachers would be able to stay in the classrooms and at 150,000 police and firefighters could remain protecting our neighborhoods. because of the paygo law, to not add one penny to the deficit. it was paid for by making cuts to programs and closing a loophole that actually rewards american corporations that ship jobs overseas. we should be exporting american goods, not american jobs. this is a defining issue this

year. we support a patriotic pro-jobs agenda that puts the interests of american workers first. as part of our make it in america agenda, which removed a terrible provision of the tax law that incentivizes some corporations to move certain operations overseas. in his ohio speech, the republican leader got this issue totally wrong, and it is important to set the record straight. the fact is that very creative lawyers have found a way to have the american taxpayer, you, me, and the people who are watching, subsidize the taxes of certain corporations paid to foreign governments for profits generated by their overseas operations. this is unfair to american workers and to american taxpayers. mr. john boehner and his republican colleagues voted against stopping this abuse and

chose to protect the and patriated overseas profits of certain corporations at the extent of american workers. there are other clear policies in the midterms. republican point man is joe barton, who famously apologized to bp when he said the $20 billion compensation fund that president obama insisted upon amounted to an unfair government shakedown. house leaders pretended to run from joe barton like he had the measles. less well-known was the fact that congressman tom price, the german representing the 116- member house that the group, said the same thing, accused the president of a chicago style political shakedown for coming up with a fund to compensate the victims of the deepwater horizon

spill. the house republican energy policy is no different. than that of the bush-cheney energy policy, and all but two republicans voted against our legislation to prevent a future -- a feature golf type oil spill. the republican point person on the budget is representative paul ryan. like john boehner, he should be credited with putting his policy proposals on the table. his so-called road map for america would partially privatize social security and and medicare as we know it. again, in this election year, the republican members and candidates who would embrace the -- those ideas are tending to run away from it. just last year there was a vote on the medicare portion of that plan, and republican leadership

and republicans voted for the ryan budget plan to abolish medicare in its current form by cutting debt by 75% when phased in, turning it into a voucher plan and throwing seniors to the winds of the uncontrolled costs of the of private insurance market. that is what it says. with respect to the bush plan, to partially privatize social security, john boehner was a strong backer of that plan, and it was a key element of the house republican study group when republicans were last in control of the congress, a plan that would steer billions and billions of dollars of american social security retirement savings the wall street. those are the issues at stake, those are the choices, and it is clear that after the eight years of the bush administration policies the economy was driven into the

ditch, and for the past 20 months republican colleagues have been criticizing every effort we need to get the economy out of the beach and back in gear. now, in 2010, just as a fragile recovery is under way, they are asking the american people to give them the keys to the car again. before they do that, the american people should read the republicans' 2010 driving manuel. as we have been discussing, that manuel tells us very clearly they want to reenact the same agenda that drove us into the agenda -- into the ditch in the first place. it is an agenda that is unsafe at any speed, and americans will not go into a hard reverse. i can assure you the next nine months you will hear more and more from the president and our colleagues about a clear contrast and the clear choice the americans will face when they go to the booth. i want to address the other two

components of why the democrats will retain a majority in the house. the republican candidate are out of sync with the main street in these districts. in arizona the other day, all the national media attention was focused on the fact that senator john mccain defeated the tea party favorite candidate. little noticed was the fact that the washington republicans' highly touted candidate in arizona's eighth district, a state senator, lost to the tea party candidate, a far right candidate who believes in privatizing social security and takes a very hard line right view. you are seeing that same thing play out in other parts of the

country. in other instances you are seeing republican candidates who are simply retreading, people like steve pierce, people who have had their hands on the driving wheel with the bush administration. it will be difficult for them to make the claim that they represent a new turning of the page. third, campaigns matter. these will be close elections. many will be decided at the margins. we have been preparing for what we knew would be tough midterms from the very beginning. when people were still basking in the glow of the victory of president obama, democrats expanding majorities in the house, we were getting to work planning for what would clearly be choppy political waters, given the fact that in the last two cycles democrats have picked

up 55 seats in all the swing districts in the country. we have a front line program designed to help our members in the toughest tricks in terms of the resources for their campaigns. on the official site, these members have been more active than any classes in history, 2006 and 2010, in passing legislation that directly benefit their communities. the focus not only on front-line members, but also on the senior members, members who in 1994 got caught by this prize, making sure they took nothing for granted. we have a strong financial advantage, and we have put in place expensive field operations that are not designed simply as a last minute get out the vote, but have been placed around the country for months, knocking on doors, talking to voters, in the

swing districts about these issues. we also made it -- make a clear decision early on to stay on offense wherever possible. clearly, after picking up 55 seats over the last two elections, we have had to work hard in defending those members. wherever possible, we have stayed in offense, and there are a good number of what we call red-to-blue candidate out there competing for republican seats, and we are confident that we will pick up a good number of those. let me end by saying that just as republicans are currently prematurely popping the champagne bottles about november 2, they did the same thing in three special elections we have seen over the past two years. new york 20, new york 23, and pennsylvania 12.

some of the same themes are playing out today. in new york 23, we saw that local choice of the republican party was run out by a tea party candidate. he had been a moderate republican candidate, chosen by a local republican party. you had sarah palin and the tea party movement come in and essentially drive her out of the race. this is a district that had been held by the republicans since the civil war. in the case of pennsylvania 12, after the polls closed, republicans were telling folks that their candidate was going to win. what happened was the democratic candidate focused on the issues, economy, on the fact that his opponents had supported and benefited from some of these special tax breaks rewarded corporations to ship jobs

overseas and focused on bread and butter issues, combined with a great field campaign operation that out the vote. where republicans did not think democrats would come out the vote, they did in big numbers in that campaign. for the three reasons we've talked about today, the fact that this election prevent -- presents a clear choice moving forward and returning to the same policies that got us into this mess to begin with, the fact that you have republican candidate out of the mainstream in what are centrist, mainstream, swing districts, and the fact that we have been preparing from day one for what we knew would be very tough campaign season, i am confident that the democrats will retain control of the house, which will allow us to continue to move this country forward rather than go back. thank you for your attention today. i hope that we will have an

opportunity between now and the election to have a traditional exchange between both of the congressional campaign committee leaders, and with that i will be delighted to try to answer any questions you have. >> i will ask the first question, and then we will turn it over. was not give the right, there are enough seats in play, but you are thinking you will win this? >> this is a political town, and people need to understand when the phrase things certain way they get interpreted. that comment was interpreted to mean we have tough contested elections, but to suggest that the democrats would actually lose the house, even though that is not exactly what he said. that me say this.

we have said from the beginning that these are going to be tough elections. this is primarily because the democrats picked up 55 seats. in addition to the fact, you have a historical pattern, the president's party traditionally loses seats in off-year elections. for the reason i talked about it, the democrats will maintain control of the house mostly because people do not want to go back to what they know is a failed economic agenda. the amount we will go to questions now. >> thank you. you spoke about the advantages you have. you did not mention what your real deficit is, which is talk shows. unfortunately, you guys are not representative or represented in

such an unfashionable way as to be statistically insignificant. talk to us about your concerns in this area. >> you raise a good point, because despite the huge proliferation in sources of information that we see today, the fact is that many people tend to go to just certain sources of information. there is no doubt that you have a lot of very right-wing political talk radio and some very other stations that tend to focus on the republican position on issues, and that is no doubt a challenge, and it is one that we just ask americans to take into account as they listen to the information they are getting. it is the same issue we have with some of these third-party expenditures we are seeing around the country, which i hope to have a chance to talk about all was well.

that there is a power to those voices. i would just ask the american people to listen where they are coming from. there is some. , a time ago, where someone said that he hoped the president would fail. there were a number of republicans in the congress who said that does not sound right. i do not think any american would want the president of the united states to fail. within 24 hours after rush limbaugh got on the air, announcing that, he apologized. i do not underestimate the power of some of these outlets, but we have to counter them by trying to get the best information we can out there. >> your style is traditional washington gentleman's tone. what i know this is when you

guys get lied about by your opposition, when they lie about the president, when they lie , you members of congress a guys do not come out and say you have lied and prove the facts. why don't you do that? >> i think we do. one of the concerns americans have around the country is the tone of our politics. i think a lot of that style that you see on the other side, which i think you accurately describe in terms of the tone -- no doubt there are people who have misrepresented the facts. now, the fact that the matter is i do not think americans appreciate necessarily the total food fight. i believe at the end of the day people will look at the facts and information, but it is our

job to get that information out there, and that is what you are going to be seen over the next nine-plus weeks, in every one of these districts, people will be clearly defining process. we have spent the last 20 months trying to get the economy out of the ditch. now it is time to counter all the misrepresentations out there and present it as a choice. this goes to the point i referenced earlier. republicans would like the american people to have a collective case of amnesia, and they would like this to be a campaign only about the democrats and how you feel about washington. our point is when you go into that booth, you have choices, and we need to clearly articulate what those different choices are, and we started to lay that out clearly in the last

couple weeks today in correcting a lot of the statements john boehner made in ohio. also, just making it clear that the extent that they laid out an agenda, it is one that would take us back to the same failed policies. >> mr. van hollen, this week's sarah palin showed her muscle in the senate republican primary in alaska. what impact do you expect her to have in the general election in the house in november? >> you are already beginning to see that. esol as i mentioned earlier in in the new use ayou saw york 23, where they came in and endorsed a libertarian, and that is the effect that you are

seeing from sarah palin. if you watch these republican primaries closely, there are many instances now where the candidate that represented a more moderate republican has lost to the more extreme right candidate. these are swing districts. they are decided largely by independent voters, and independent voters do not want to return to a bush economic agenda on steroids. what a lot of these candidates are proposing is exactly that. b. defect you are seeing is one that moves -- the effect you are seeing is one of his people to the right and out of the mainstream. [unintelligible] there are two issues. one is the political energy

issue and one is what impact they have on independent voters, ok? what you are seeing is as i said they are driving the debate in the republican primary to the right and moving away from the centrist, sort of moderate, tempered the use of these districts. there is no doubt that there is political energy that will affect turnout. the mistake they are making is concluding by the end of the day you will not have a strong democratic turnout. it is exactly the mistake they made in pennsylvania 12. the reason they were claiming they were going to win that election, after the polls closed, all their modeling and assumption said that democrats are not going to turn out. what happened was, when people focus on the choices, focused on the issues, combined with a good ground operation, they did. >> raise your hand and we will go, this german, sick and wrote,

right here. >> to drill a little bit on the budget discussion, is there any hesitation among democrats about letting the bush tax cuts expire in december, given the state of the economy? >> a couple points. what republicans are calling for is a permanent extension of the portion of the bush tax cuts that benefited top 2%, which the congressional budget office would blow a $680 billion hole in the deficit. john boehner himself indicated that these long-term deficits are going to harm long-term economic growth, and yet that is exactly what they are proposing. the democratic position is that we should make sure that we provide tax relief to 90% of the

american people, and to the point with respect to the state of the economy, again, it has been proven by the eight years of the bush administration, and paraclete shown, that those tax cuts for the folks at the very not cause this roaring economic growth because the last day of the economic class of the bush administration, the economy was in free fall. you need that for long-term job growth is contrary to the history of the bush administration. >> good morning. abc news. i want to ask whether you were concerned about the recent

democrat at we have seen that are running away from the leadership of minneapolis in an president obama. >> the democratic leadership in congress have said all along that the job of a member of congress is to represent his or her constituents as best as they are able. they have to reflect the views and values of their constituents. one of the things that makes the democratic caucus different from the republican caucus is we have a spectrum of theological and philosophical views, and therefore, on any one issue, you'll find people who are voting with the present and voting the same way as the speaker, and on many cases, they will be voting the other way. that is what it means to be an independent member of congress. the fact that these members of congress are talking to there's constituents about how they vote

on particular issues and that they are independent-minded members of congress, is an appropriate thing for them to be doing. they should be laying out their record and talking to their constituents and demonstrating they are doing their job. >> independent writer. corporate profits are very high and so are banking profits, and what is the democratic position to get them to invest in a new capital equipment which will create jobs? on the other hand, the $8,000 subsidy for housing has artificially kept prices up and not stimulated new housing as the new numbers show. could you address this, please? >> on the first point, you are right, there are a lot of businesses, especially the larger businesses, that had greater capital, and the key is to make sure we continue what is

a very fragile recovery and do everything we can to accelerate it. that is why it be such a mistake to go backwards. john boehner has recently proposed, as i have said, canceling over 60,000 contracts and awards worth an estimated $260 billion. that is a sure way to start moving confidence -- moving the economy back and undermining confidence. what we need to be doing is passing the legislation that has already passed the house and is now being blocked by republicans in the senate to provide small businesses greater access to credit. the issue raises into larger businesses. smaller businesses are having difficult -- development -- different from which.

-- different problems. where trying to increase their access to loans, and keep their operations going and growing. this is why it is so maddening to see the republicans continue to block that in the house. with respect to the housing issue, this economic class whispers of the guided by years on why -- years on wall street and the games played in the mortgage market. it will take time to get out of this. legislation was successful in helping the housing market at the time when it was most vulnerable. we hope to see a recovery. we went from total freefall to stability, and now very fragile growth. we understand that the growth is

fragile, but it would be a huge mistake to do the things that john boehner is proposing. >> i want to follow up, given on it helped the housing situation for a while, is there a chance the leadership would extend credit? >> that is something, bob, that i think people may look at, we are focused right now primarily on trying to get more capital into the small business community. that is our focus right now, and that is what we want to get done, and we urge our republican colleagues in the senate to move quickly on that as soon as the senate reconvenes. >> ok, over there, modern health care. >> can we talk about the impact of the health reform law? are you confident this will be an advantage for you in the election? is there a concern that it will hinder you? thoughts on that? >> with respect to the issue, it

is another measure that the republicans call to repeal. and i do think when americans are asked the question, you want to repeal a provision that prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against kids, which is now in effect, you want to repeal a provision that says people can stay on their parents' insurance policy until the age 26, a policy that closes the donut hole so that seniors can afford prescription drugs? the american people and not want to go back on those issues. the health care reform bill represented a shift from eight years in which the health insurance companies called all the shots to a time where more power has been transferred to doctors and consumers. to bring down premiums over

time, to get people more affordable choices. now, as you know, this goes back to your earlier questions, there are members of the democratic caucus, who did not support health care reform and many who did. that will be a debate carried on in those districts, depending on particular votes. i would say it is very clear that the american people do not want to go back to a time where insurance companies had all the power during the eight years of the bush administration. premiums doubled and small buses were facing this increase in premiums, and profits quadruple. now small businesses have tax credits as of today to help provide their employees with health insurance at a time they are struggling. i do not think the american people want to repeal that and start all over from scratch.

as we identify issues, we should fix them. i'm glad you raised that because there is an issue that deals with section 1099. mr. john boehner raised this the other day in his speech. it is a provision that requires small businesses to report on payments they made exceeding $600. we had a vote in the house to repeal it. democrats proposed -- proposed repealing that provision. we pay for that by closing down loopholes. when faced with the decision, do you help small businesses by getting rid of what everyone agrees is an onerous provision or, again, supporting incentives to shift american jobs overseas, they voted to protect those overseas corporate profits. it was interesting to hear john

boehner raise that issue, since, to a person, his colleagues voted against the opportunity to repeal 1099. >> a question? >> political report. this is getting to be this season where we will start seeing a lot of ads from the other side, and the committee has reserved at time in over 60 districts so far. how coldblooded are you willing to be about strategy, and are you open at all over the course of the next month to pooling resources from races beyonce bifurcating and allocating them -- from races beyond saving? >> one is cold-blooded in the

context of drawing a clear contrast, but you really meant in terms of hot making hard decisions about how we allocate resources. our candidates on the first interpretation of the question, they are out there, they will be showing clear distinctions. the independent expenditure arm of the independence will decide the content of those ads. with respect to how we will make decisions, at the end of the day, we will look at races that we can win. the dccc cannot create a campaign from scratch and build a totally successful campaign, but we can be the booster rocket that helps a campaign get over the finish line. we will make our decisions primarily on two factors. one looks at the polling data,

and the second looks at the organization and the funds available at the campaign so we make a determination about whether or not those campaigns can be successful at the end of the day. >> "the washington post," over there somewhere. >> we have seen a bunch of republican polls out there in the last few weeks. we have not seen the democratic polls come out. are the polling day you are seeing refuting the republican'' in any way, and why you think, if the republican polls are off, what are they getting wrong in the methodology? >> the polling that i have seen does refute that. it does receipt that you have -- it does not refute the fact that

you have a lot of close races, a lot of republicans running away with these races. i believe that the main error in a lot of these polls is assumptions about turnout on the democratic side. it is the same reason, i have to go back to pennsylvania 12, the same reason that republicans were popping the champagne balls after the polls closed in -- the champagne bottles after the polls closed in pennsylvania 12. the result of your pole will be driven entirely by the assumptions you make. turnout is a difficult thing to gauge, especially in a year like this. we have to look at the facts. on the one hand, it is true in poland today, if you try to measure the political energy level, you have got folks on the right who are running out the door but the campaigns have not

happened yet. most of the activity will take place in the next nine and a half weeks. that is when the messages will be sharpened and our kames have been doing a whole lot of field work that has been going on on a regular basis for months now, and you are seeing the energy level rapidly rise on the democratic side. in fact, this saturday, tomorrow, we will have our national day of action. we will lock on over 200,000 doors across the country. withricts75 thousands of volunteers each, and if you are listening, you can sign up at dccc.org.

getting back to the question, it all depends on these turnout assumptions. i think they have been miscalculating democratic turnout. >> we will come back to decide now. in the back. >> cbs. i am curious about your thoughts rally tomorrow.'s he says it is not going to be political. >> it is blatantly political. come on. talkingn glenn beck about this election for the last 15 months since the day president obama was elected president. you have had a constant tirade against the president, against democratic efforts to get the

economy turned around. let's call it what it is. it is a plan to it -- it is a blatant political effort. going back to the earlier questions here, that americans are going to be turned off by the sort of outrageous rhetoric on the right, conspiracy theories, rants. there is certainly an element of the electorate that is charged up by that, but it is a turnoff to the sensible center, and the people who constitute the keep independent voters in the swing districts. they see that kind of stuff, and they say, we do not want to go there. the policies of the previous eight years of the bush administration were bad enough. these guys are way off on the right. >> over there?

>> pbs. i want to know if you guys have any plans to use president obama or for president clinton to campaign for some of your honorable members? >> i think both will be on the campaign trail. president obama has already been making some stops and run the country. i am sure that schedule will accelerate and intensify in the next five and a half months. the president understands what is at stake. he does not want to present the republicans with an opportunity to turn back the clocks to the earlier policies. the same with bill clinton. he has been out there. bill clinton was helping in this pennsylvania 12 special election, the york 20 special

election. they are very much out there. >> are they asking to coordinate that in any way? >> our members have been asking, and we will be working with the president and the white house to make the best use of the president's time and a former president's time. >> any questions? >> i have trouble getting my mind around your optimism here. >> identify yourself. >> bloomberg. how you account for the fact that in florida, a swing state, which will be crucial in his reelection in 2012, the turnout for republicans was almost 50% more than in the democratic primary, which people say is an enthusiasm gap in florida

voters? >> you typically see it in primaries. you see higher republican turnout. i could point still whole slew of candidates, members of congress today who, when they had their primaries, there was a lower turnout and republican primaries for the same offices. because people are motivated by different issues, and i think the choice in november is going to be very different than the choices people are making in republican primaries. a lot of the activity you are seeing in the republican primaries is driven by the division between the tea party republican candidates and the more mainstream republican candidate. that is driving a whole lot of

that turned out activity. you saw that in arizona, too. you had a statewide election, primary on the republican side. you had some big races that are again, i go back to the most recent test case. we did have a big senate primary. if you look at the turnout numbers, that turned out in pennsylvania 12 was much higher for democrats and republicans, because that particular

campaign, in terms of the message campaign and the ground operation, helped bring out democratic vote. i can go back to the most recent data point we have. >> where are some of these red to blue districts you are talking about? >> we will have to bring them to their attention. there are a number of congressional districts where you have a high democratic performances that voted overwhelmingly for president obama. you have delaware open seat,

illinois 810, you have louisiana, a democratic seat, where the incumbent was elected three weeks after the national election because of scheduling in louisiana elections. you have a white, where in the special election we just saw the democratic combined got 60% of the vote, but because of a special election rule they split the vote. then you have a lot of other districts where you have strong candidates. in many cases they have outraised the republican incumbents. they have strong arguments to be made, and the full list of those red-to-blue candid this can be dccc website.

there is a narrower band of territory to compete on offense, but we are still doing it and made a calculated decision to do whatever we could on that front. hello there. in your opinion, in the media, saying that the the democrats will lose house seats, is there anything to that? >> you have a lot of folks, a lot of them inside washington,

if you go around most of the country, people are going about their daily lives trying to make ends meet. i can tell you that they are not that focused right now on all the ins and outs of the horserace in washington. my sense is that you have a lot of chatter going on. it has been a fact from the beginning that this was going to be a tough election for the democrats. i think you'll find , looking at historical cycles, we have one close to 100% of seats. all of that being said, i am confident the american people will not want to turn back. you have a lot of republican candidates.

i am confident the democrats will take a majority. i think that the more voters focus on those choices and the more that they listen to john boehner and what the republicans said they would do, to the extent people think it is a real possibility that could happen, then they will be even more motivated to come out because the american people do not want to go back. if i could say one word about the third party ads, there are a lot of groups on the right spending a lot of money to influence voters and influence the elections. they are on the air right now. our message to voters is they were. tried to take the time to find out or at least ask yourself who

is running ads and paying for them. one of the reasons democrats want the disclose act was because we wanted voters to know who is paying for the ads. our republican colleagues voted to keep people in the dark. and right now as a result of the supreme court decision, foreign- controlled corporations can secretly spend as much money as they want in these elections and nobody would know. they are not looking after american interests. they are looking after whatever interest they may have. it is just common sense that the american people have a right to know who is paying for this advertising. one of the group's spending a lot is americans for prosperity. it is a group created by david koch.

it so happens that his subsidiaries not long ago received the and outsourcing toward from a group that soucers.es great out sorcerer' but the message is americans need to understand the reasons out-of-state groups are standing -- spending millions is because they have an economic interest in supporting in this case the republican opponent. americans for prosperity is not interested in american prosperity. they are interested in the prosperity of corporations and individuals who benefited greatly from the bush economic agenda. we believe the voters need to ask themselves that question and

calling upon these groups that are on the air to tell them who is paying for these ads, why are they running these ads supporting these republican candidates? these groups are not interested in charity. they are interested in republican candidates who will support their economic special interests. >> i think we have no more questions. is there anything else you would like to add? >> thank you all for being here. it looks like everyone -- the congress will reconvene soon. having spoken with our members around the country, who are actively engaged every day with their constituents, that they are encouraged by the fact that

americans are an optimistic people. one thing americans always want to do is move forward. americans do not want to go back and they don't want to go back to the kind of policies that got us into the deepest trouble to begin with. thanks very much. thanks for having me. announcement.e adults mea join us on monday at 10:00 for two federal judge is discussing personal threats and security concerns. randall frye, president of the association of administrative law judges and who we have the president of the national association of immigration judges and other judges will participate in this important event. congressman van hollen, thanks

very much. we are adjourned. >> thank you very much. h[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the prospect of it coming up in the congress [inaudible] what we are focused on when it

comes to these issues are making sure we do nine blow a $680 billion hole in the deficit. we want to extend tax cuts that benefit 98% of people. republicans have taken the position unless you have a permanent extension of that portion that helps the top 2%, where the overwhelming number of people earn half a million dollars a year. that is what is holding up moving forward the middle-class cuts. >> in it is not just republicans thinking it is a bad idea, and you have a lot of democrats who want to extend it. if you had a vote this fall,

could you sustain the president's position? >> they are calling for permanent extensions. they have said unless you have a permanent extension -- you could have other variations in terms of what you do, but they are the ones holding up relief for middle income americans. they said unless we get a permanent extension we will not allow anything else. >> the president is saying let's repeal the tax cuts. could you pass that in the house today? >> yes, i believe we could. for all the reasons we have talked about. people are nervous about the economic stability and making

sure we have a foundation. it is burdened by history bad [inaudible] that was a prescription for economic growth we would not have seen the end of the movie plead did. >> -- of the movie that we did. >> here is the difference. the democrats want to extend the long term middle class tax cuts. republicans have said they won't do that unless you permanently extend tax cuts for the top 2%. let me leave it at that. >> congressmen mccarthy said [inaudible] >> how do you [inaudible]

you know there are seats very much in play. eats you could say are theoretically in play. includingow if he is the number of republican seats. >> what is your number? >> we have 42 [inaudible] we had some of the democratic open seats, not all of them. at.y patrick kennedy se you look at that mix. we did not get to that kind of number, but this is -- al you draw the line is -- how you draw the line is an inside washington

game. >> [inaudible] which one concerns you the most banks of the three competitive races in indiana, which won concerns you the most? >> we are taking none of those for granted. at the end of the day the democratic candidates will win. [inaudible] he is ready and prepared. cho donley -- joe donnelly, is doing very well. in the open seat, [inaudible] i think he has a great opportunity. we are involved in all of those

seats. >> thank you all very much. >> coming up tonight, speeches by members of the u.s. supreme court. we will hear first from justice anthony kennedy. in sonia sotomayor, followed by live coverage of justice ruth bader ginsburg as she speaks in colorado springs, colorado. >> supreme court justice anthony kennedy spoke at this year's ninth circuit judicial conference in malick, hawaii. he spoke about the challenge of the federal caseload. following his speech, he set

down with a judge and a lawyer from southern california to talk about his career. this is a little more than an hour. >> thank you for your gracious welcome to marry and me here in the ninth circuit here in hawaii. here in this room, where we continue the important tradition of the circuit conference. the circuit conference for its members, for the courts, the judiciary, the legal profession, for the lawyers, for the academy, for the professors, is not an option. it is a necessity. it is a characteristic, the distinguishing mark of american life and american culture that

we constantly learn and adapt and become more efficient, and this room has probably been the venue for hundreds of different conferences. people involved in every segment of our cultural and economic and social activity, learning how to do better. >> he said he was anxious to get back to washington and get back to his responsibility for one reason, so he could learn more. we are at this conference to learn more. i see you in your elegant hawaii and a tire. waiin attire.

tireless joe was a terrific attorney. juries loved him. when he tried cases and went to the appellate court, he wore no tie. he got a terrific, staggering verdict for his client, and the case was appealed to the supreme court of alabama. he argued the case in his usual attire. a few minutes later, they reversed the case and took away his verdict. a few weeks after that, he was going down the street in montgomery and so the chief justice coming. he said good morning, chief justice. the chief justice said good morning, joe. tieless joe said chief justice,

did you rule against the in that case because i did not wear a tie? the chief justice said no. tieless joe said, i am sorry to hear that. that would have been a better reason than the one you gave. [laughter] when the professor told us we had to learn more, he was summing up the purpose and the dynamic and the structure of this conference. the structure of this conference is designed to mirror the structure of the legal profession. it includes members of the bench, members of the practicing bar, members of the legal academy. we take this for granted. we take for granted because it is part of the anglo-american tradition, that members of the

bench in significant number come from the preeminent ranks of the practicing bar. judges are born at the bar. ssa, we just assume this is the natural order of things, but in most parts of the world, that is not so. in most parts of the world, there is a rigorous separation between bench, bar, and academy. each is more distant from the other than is true here. the constant interchange, the constant transfers we have between and among our branches are simply nonexistent in most countries of the world. if you choose to be a judge, you become a civil servant and never intend to practice law, in

europe. the result is that if courts need rule changes, it is very difficult to accomplish. many people think that judges, because they are federal judges, they are confirmed by the senate. i have a lot of political clout. nothing could be further from the truth. we rely on the legal profession, on the members of the practicing bar and on the academy, to make your case. if we want rule changes, we have advisory committees which include attorneys and academics. we design the rules and that way. when i was in eastern europe, the judges were complaining to me that civil and criminal rules were broken, and that was looks like inauspicious and very sound experiment or decision, to have an open court system, is not

working. the idea of meeting with attorneys or academics to jointly propose and support and endorse and fashion and formulate rules and to urge their adoption in the legislature is simply not part of their culture. so we are very, very fortunate. i hope that the public can learn more about the nature of this conference and the subject we discussed. i hope that the legal profession as a whole, not just litigators, but the legal profession as a whole can learn about the issues and the problems that you have discussed here with great intensity and great diligence and really great intellect and expertise. i wish the public could know and understand the dedication and commitment of the members of this conference.

as i just indicated, the efficiency, the expertise, the prestige, the excellence of the federal judiciary is the business of the entire legal profession, because we not only symbolizes, but we in effect are the reality of the structure that guards the idea of the rule law. it was simply a fascinating to me that you began your profession with a discussion of one of the most crucial, dangerous, disturbing issues of our time, terrorism.

we had on the panel prosecutor, defense attorney, law professor , dedicated, extremely capable u.s. district judge. became very clear halfway into the discussion that the attack on the rule of law had failed. article 3 courts are quite capable of trying terrorist cases, and the judge told you. [applause] the judge told you, you didn't need a special panel. the fjc and the judicial panel and the legal profession and the law school had background

experience. judges can learn to do this. and then we switched from that predominant, disturbing issue of our time, an issue where our national survival is at stake as well as the rule of law, to a single case of a woman who claimed to have been mistreated or perhaps brutalized by the police, and that dignified man who had a noisy neighbor, the neighbor sued him, and neither had an attorney. we found out from judge marvin aspen that this program in chicago -- that there are ways to provide attorneys for the unrepresented litigant. i was taking notes, and the

figure was that in 70% of cases, civil cases in the united states, at least one litigant is unrepresented. i did not know that. the judges in the legal profession are committed to fix that. it is an astounding figure. are there problems in the judicial system? of course. are there delays, excessive costs, or the judges overworked? of course. but we are learning more, and what you learn in this conference must be shared. others in the profession, with others in the public. it is important for the public to understand that the

excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk, and for this we need the understanding and knowledge and the help of the entire legal profession and the public. if judicial s excellence is cast a policy of congressional indifference, the rule of law is in peril. [applause] the bar as a whole, not just to dedicated attorneys who are here, the congress and the public ought to know the figures. the eastern district of sacramento, california, part of

that district that extends from fresno to the oregon border, we have five active judges, and the statistics tell us that we need 15. 1200 cases per judge. our committed, dedicated, brilliant federal judges are struggling with this case load, but their dedication must be recognized. that is why such due to this conference and the fact that this conference occurs is an absolute necessity. i have just a few comments about these different branches of the profession. let me first make a few comments

about law school. the original purpose of law reviews was to have case comments to be critical of judicial decisions. we are one of the only professions that encourages criticism by those who are not even members of our ranks yet, law students, cuckoo lawyers -- cocoon lawyers. it surprises me how often i am trying to describe -- decide if certiorari should be granted. it is surprising how often weak grant certiorari in a case. and there is no case comment. part of this is the time line. we have a very efficient system for the adjudication of issues

in our judicial system. for understand our reasons, law students want to take time and care and the painstaking, but it does not help us if the comment comes out on the law review too late. what my clerks do now, they read blogs. weigh in, and the golden age of any thing is when you are there. maybe the world was changing, but i think law schools must be very careful to remain relevant to the appellate process.

it is perfectly possible and feasible, it seems to me, for law review commentary immediately to come out with reference to important this record cases so that we have some neutral, detached, critical, intellectual commentary and analysis of the case. we need that. i was at an event not too many years ago and i was at this table for lunch. we had the dean of harvard and the dean of yale. in order to make conversation, and because i was interested, i said, what is different about law school now and many years ago, the golden age when i was in law school? what is different? one of the deans said that when you went to law school, your

professors thought of themselves first as lawyers, second as professors. now it is the other way around. now they think of themselves first as oppressors and then as lawyers. i thought about it and said, i can understand this. it is important for the legal academy to maintain their own excellence, their own pre- eminence in the world a graduate studies. if this means that we have to have lawyers with multiple degrees and multiple disciplines, economics, science, literature, fine. i can understand that. but is very under -- important that law professors do not either explicitly or unconsciously depreciate or disparage the practice of law.

the law schools and their law reviews should ask themselves how better they can help the legal profession. one way they can do this is by empirical studies. we make assumptions when we write appellate cases based on what we think we know is happening in the legal profession. this is rather dangerous for someone who has not practiced law for more than 30 years. it is rather dangerous for people who don't go out and have a beer with the boys and see what is going on. we need empirical data. i will give you just a few cases. a case from the ninth circuit. the question was this. the courts of appeals near the borders have hundreds, probably thousands of applications from those who are subject to a

deportation order and they want it stayed so the court of appeals can hear the case because they claim they are not portable. the question is, what standard should the court of appeals use? the supreme court said it should be the usual standard. we were tempted, knowing the workload of the ninth circuit, to relieve them of the responsibility of applying a more lax standard, but we did not do that. we were certain that the court of appeals would be faithful to the standard. we were not sure whether or not -- would it have empirical studies on that.

was the standard right? did the court of appeals have enough time to do this? we don't know. it would be very simple for law students and law professors to talk to the clerk of court, to have some sort of electronic indexing for these complaints before these cases. there was a confrontation case, the question, laboratory does a report on a blood alcohol sample, fingerprint. does that export have to testify in the court, or can she sent a certificate or an assistant? melendez dias -- the justices

did not dissent. its guy's going to fall, would destruct trials, we will have demands on overloaded lab technicians who have to wait in the hallway of the court room for touring three days. the judge in good faith will schedule the case but then the case has to wait for two or three days because of some other emergency. we did have empirical studies. our prosecutions being dismissed? we don't know. this is something that is very easy to study. it is odd to me that in this age of statistical empiricism that we don't have more raw data, and in the breeze in that case, we found very little to help us -- in the briefs in that

case, we found very little to help us. in another case, the seamen ask for maintenance and cure in addition to an unseaworthy this claim. can the request. it damages? we have only had at multi law for a couple of hundred years, but nobody knew the answers that we gave them. one of the questions was, if you allow pitch of damages in maintenance and your case, will there be routine requests for punitive damages, which would, of course, changed the dynamic of settlements, changed the dynamic of litigation? it would be very easy to have empirical studies, to track the number of cases in major

jurisdictions and to the statistical study so we know, were right or wrong? it seems to be that this is very important for law schools to do. the state of arizona vs. gant. if the policeman arrest the driver of an automobile, puts the driver and the back seat of a poll -- patrol car, handcuffed -- can cut some so that he is restrained, that the patrol officer could search the car for weapons are contraband. the supreme court held that is not true. there is no safety concern because he is in the back of the patrol car. there may be some circumstances in which can search, something like well-founded suspicion, or you can just have a police officer stan there until the tow truck comes and you can do an

inventory search. but what about the dangers to the neighbors and to other people from guns that might be in the car? can we have statistical data to show that one side or the other was right in this debate? after all, the constitution talks about unreasonable search and seizures. this is a factor in reasonable. these are the kind of empirical studies that i think the law schools would be well abies to make. -- well advised to make. something i addressed to the law schools and the bar, judges must take out of this one. we have a crisis in attracting preeminent attorneys to the bench and keeping them with us once they come. in addition to the obvious need

let the congress has elected to follow with reference to compensation, there are other factors as well. is the selection process in the confirmation process working the way it should for district and circuit courts? forget the supreme court, that is a whole different set of problems. it would be of immense importance for the bar and the academy to have studies, dialogues, conferences, about how well we are doing in the selection and confirmation of judges for the united states district courts and courts of appeals. and the delay factor i have already mentioned, were the judges in the eastern district of california have a 1200 case for judge caseload.

if that study could identify certain neutral principles, certain criteria, certain standards that could be followed in that process, then maybe they could be applicable to supreme court confirmations as well. it is of immense importance that the public have confidence in the confirmation process. separation of powers was designed to fix accountability, not to obscure it. it was designed to assign responsibility, not to evade it. the congress has the responsibility to determine whether or not we are going to have a judicial branch of excellence, and i think that the constitution demands that and it

is their constitutional duty to do that. these kind of studies might be the basis for more productive dialogue with the members of the congress of the united states on this issue that is so vital to the tradition of excellence and to the prestige and to the respect of the judiciary of the united states. i was fascinated that you had this productive discussion on the whole idea of case management, and it was interesting that the judges received the awards. mr. westerberg, a practicing attorney from ohio received an award. it was interesting how important it was that all three of those

people are committed to excellence in the federal courts. arbitration or alternative dispute resolution is, of course, or was an undiscovered, and export realm, and it is of immense importance, but simply because there is an option for alternative dispute resolution does not mean that the federal courts should be complacent about sending cases to arbitration. it is a source of concern to me that the federal courts, which i have always thought of as the fairest, most efficient, most neutral, most prospective forum for the resolution of disputes, is now seeing far fewer civil

cases. there is talk of the vanishing caseload. in part, if there is sound judicial management, that is because there is no vanishing judge. the judge has just entered the process earlier. there are other problems that the cases are not coming at all. with the cases that are here, they are not vanishing if a judge has participated in the settlement mediation, and discovery management process. in 1975, it was my first judicial conference. i practice law in the beginning of the 1960's and 1970's. how can some judge tell me how to try my case? that is a fair question, if it did not have a false premise. it was not my case. it was the court case, the

systems case, the public's taste. -- a public pose a case. case. public's it benefits the public to have a judicial system in which the trial of cases is managed. i get much of my information on this subject from all of you here, from a superior court judge in los angeles in charge of complex litigation, and david levy, former u.s. district judge, and former chairman of the standing committee on federal rules. they all tell me that the good news and the bad news is the same. all the participants in the process want more judge intervention, more judge time.

that is good news, because it means there are systems we can learn, standards we can apply. in so many choices now we have not narrow them down. every case is different. there are systems that judges can apply to make litigation more efficient. the bad news is that more judge time is required. you know the problem, if you commit to many judicial resources up front in the case does not sell, then maybe you have wasted your time. but the expertise and the commitment and dedication that the bar and the bench and the academy showed in discussing this problem and this challenge here is immensely reassuring.

the dedication and commitment of the members of this conference have my admiration, and for your attendance here, you have my most respectful banks. thank you very much. -- my most respectful thanks. [applause] >> justice kennedy, but chief judge kosinski, congress chair and conference colleagues, justice hugo black speaking to the supreme court said, no higher duty or more solemn

responsibility rests upon this court then that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield. for the benefit of every human being subject to our constitution, of whatever race, creed, or persuasion, justice kennedy, i believe that the participants would suggest and i am sure this idaho kid would say, we thank you for making that your creed and doing what you do on the supreme court and coming here to address us. [applause] you will now hear the questioning of justice kennedy

by two we have chosen to represent with questions from judges and from lawyers here, to question him today. we first have asked our conference chair, chief judge oregon solace from the southern district of california -- chief judge irma gonzalez. i think you all know chief judge gonzalez. there are some facts in the brochures, or not in the brochure, which i thought were interesting. she is the president of the ninth circuit district judges association. she is also the first mexican- american woman appointed to the federal branch, and in the law blogger underneath their robes, she is a super hottie of the federal judiciary. [laughter]

[applause] we also asked to join her the chair of the lawyer represented coordinating committee, who has been recognized as one of the best lawyers in america for bankruptcy and creditor rights law, a fellow of the american college of bankruptcy, a partner in the century city office of steptoe johnson, llp. she has written articles and published in the national law journal. these two wonderful people will now ask justice kennedy questions on our behalf. [applause] >> justice kennedy, it has been a privilege to get to know you a little better here at the conference. we have spent some time together

and it has been a real privilege. i am going to ask the big questions and robyn is, too. we are hoping that at the end of our time here with justice kennedy, there'll be a few minutes left over for those of you in the audience who have some questions for justice kennedy. so i will start. justice kennedy, teaching is near and dear to your heart. i know that you teach in austria during the summer for the month of july, and i have also learned that you teach in china. my first question has to do with of course used to teach in salzburg, law and literature. one of the books that you discussed with your students there was shakespeare's hamlet. can you explain the reason behind your choice of this particular play for discussion,

for trail a lot and literature, and secondly, do you believe shakespeare makes a strong case for an insanity defense by hamlet? [laughter] >> cannot explain my choice? no, it is completely idiosyncratic. i have a list of the 10 books that every lawyer should read. i tell my law clerks and young people, you cannot write anything good because you have never read anything good. [laughter] the list is not really shocking or astounding. the trial by frans kafka. i change it from time to time. i was thinking i was going to

read to you for the closing of my speech, a book that thought about this morning. i forgot to read it to you. i thought maybe implicit in your question was hamlet? why not ago measure for measure or old merchant of venice -- plato's republic does not work. maybe merchant of venice might have been better. portia becomes a super lawyer in is that great speech about the quality of mercy. it is twice blessed, it blesses him who gives in him who takes. it is the mightiest and the

mightiest. a magnificent speech. women in literature and life often signify equity. antigone, portia, and literature, joan of arc, rosa parks in life symbolized justice and equity. porita is wonderful, except she does not follow her own rules. she is really guilty of in -- vindictive sentencing. once he does not accept the settlement offer, she becomes just ruthless in what she does. the other one is "measure for measure," about a corrupt judge. isabella is a wonderful heroine in "measure for measure." as you go through, you see all the characters have a certain

flop. it reminds judges that introspection is one duty of our profession. i am amazed at how you can be a judge a long, long time and keep asking yourself the question, what is it that is making me do this? what are my standards? those are probably the better spake -- shakespeare books for law and literature. i choose hamlet for idiosyncratic reasons. a couple times, are produced the trial of hamlet. we have two wonderful psychiatrists testify as expert witnesses on whether or not and let should -- hamlet should

plead insanity at the key moments when he stabs the man behind the curtain. that is the high point of the play. i wrote the last rewrote the last 12 pages. then i have to the news reporter shocking event that he was just in a coma. the jury has to read -- a hole play is the record. everything in the play comes in. the best kind of teaching is to oblique way.old lik the best way to teach kids is to

make a side point so that he or she is really learning something and they don't know it. this is a marvelous way to teach hamlet. the law professor usually testifies for the defense -- excuse me, for the prosecution. a marvelous forensic psychologist. we have had the dean of the columbia school in madison and psychiatrists testify for the defense. hamlin has, according to the defense, bipolar disorder. it is a marvelous way to examine the whole play and human motivation. so often, you know the facts, and you know who the culprit is, but you don't know why he did it. this is a marvelous example of

how literature can enrich your view of life. the last time we did it, it was at the kennedy center. the eisenhower theater -- they sold out in 48 hours. it is because the ticket was only $20. [laughter] on the way out, and hamlet has a tough time getting even six boats for the jury -- 6 votes for the jury. on the way out, there were high school kids and college students are doing about the issue of senate because insanity on the way out. i don't take a position on whether or not he is sane or insane, because i am the judge in the case. i wish to blame and understood

more often what it is -- i wish laymen understood why we recurred -- reserve judgment, what we don't discuss pending cases. it is partly because the dynamics of decision making or that you have to make up your mind at a particular time. et have committed yourself before hand to the idea, it is hard to change your mind. we owe it to the profession, to the judiciary, to the rule of law to keep an open mind. ronald reagan had moral concerns about mutually assured destruction, the rule that if we have an atomic attack, we will immediately retaliate. he is to talk about a just a little bit.

i thought it was very important for him to talk about the moral grounds, but he did not have to make up his mind. the moment will form your decision, and that is why don't take a position on hamlet. >> thank you for allow me to address it with these questions to >> i forgot, i was going to read for the end of my speech, and i forgot. james gould wrote this book in 1942, "my generation." the gunmen is a prosecuting attorney and thinks he wants to be a judge. -- the young man is a prosecuting attorney. his dad gives him this advice. in the present, everyday is a miracle.

the world gets up and goes to work and is fed and in the evening comes home and is that again. to make that possible, so much has to be done by so many that on the face of it, it is impossible. everyday we do it and every day we will have to go on doing it as well as we can. so it seems that is all we want to do, ever. what you want of me? we just want you to do the impossible picks that is what our district -- we just want you to do the impossible. that is what our district judges do. [applause] >> i want to thank you for allowing me to address you. did you see the dynamics of the court changing as a result of elena kagan's nomination as associate justice, and if so, how?

>> there is a replacement juror. the whole dynamic changes. it is a difference jury. steven briar was junior justice for longer than any, other than what other justice, for 11 years. nine people in the same room for 11 years he was getting good at the job. of course, when that mix changes and there is a new face, it is a completely dark court. john stevens -- a completely different court. john stevens had one of the most marvelous legal minds i have ever encountered. he will be tremendously miss, and it will be a different court, but we have experienced it -- the system works.

we have gone for the same issue, so you tend to refine your remarks. when you have a new justice, you tend to strut your stuff all over again. anphen brieyer had interesting comment. not long ago i was then the county courthouse in sacramento. i walked up the steps were my heart used to miss a beat. we did get nervous when we go into conference. you have to argue for or six cases, this time before a new colleague. you get nervous, because you want to be well-prepared and you don't want to mistake the law.

-- mistake a lot. and you just is reminds us that we must be committed again to be as excellent as possible. i am sure she will be simply a wonderful colleague. and i don't think it is important that you have been a judge before you come on the court. i think there should be a mix. i think she will bring marvelous experience [applause] . >> i have a follow-up. >> a couple of years ago i told ruth bader ginsburg, i am from the west, and i am surrounded by new yorkers. three new yorkers, none of whom is lacking in self assurance. [laughter] i said something has to be done.

she said no, you have bronx, queens, brooklyn, you need manhattan. and sure enough -- what is next, s.i.? >> as a trial judge, i would like to know whether you believe is important to have a trial judge on the supreme court, one with trial experience, and whether that makes a difference in how that justice would approach his or her decision. in this case i am talking about judge sotomayor. >> i think it is important. district judges and circuit judges sometimes have a different approach. law clerks we get from courts of appeals think the record that was made in the trial court is something you read may be in an idle moment of curiosity. [laughter]

i said no, this case began in the district court. trial judges know that. if you ask any justice, in the judge, what is the ideal background for a judge, you will listen and pretty soon you will hear his or her own autobiography. [laughter] so course, crile experience is of immense importance. -- trial experience. i wanted to be a district judge, and i could never get the job. i suppose a lot of people would be glad to accommodate me at this point. [laughter] >> is there any and nonlawyer, alive or deceased, who would you would desire to serve as a

colleague on the supreme court would you? >> a nonlawyer, alive or deceased. on the deceased, i would give an interview to plato, but i would not hire him. [laughter] i would give him an interview because i would want to thank him for making me a platonist, which i am. political theory was my particular interest in school. for six weeks you are a plague platonist and then you are and .ristotlelian i can you suggest a utopian

state -- how can you suggest a utopian state? i think abigail adams, maybe. she was phenomenal, and was the mother of presidents and the husband of another. i think she understood the purposes of the founding fathers. in the present day, i think gordon wood would be wonderful. i have had the privilege of teaching with him a couple of different times for a few hours at a time. his book is called "the empire of liberty." i have the name wrong, but it does not go into great depth of how it is that we could have

this magnificent documents affirming freedom, the constitution, one of the greatest documents ever penned by the human hand, and we had slavery, and women could not vote. that is the duality we have to live with. i think john didion who was in high school -- joan didion would be the voice of my generation. maybe hurtado desoto -- hurtadho desoto. i think maybe for the living,

lisa randall, author of "warped passages." there is another of astrophysicist in santa cruz. i think they could bring important perspective. physicists have to think in terms of metaphors. they are the first to discover dark matter. we are close,i hear. if we could discover the nature of dark matter, we would have a unified theory of creation for the first time in human history. that would solidify the bonds of humankind.

but physicists would be fascinating as colleagues because they deal in metaphors. ophysics say there is a drop in the ocean but there is also an ocean in a drop. dark matter is so dense that the earth would be the size of a .ecaa what happens in washington, if you want a certain solution, you propose a ridiculous thing on either side and everyone adopts the thing in the middle. in physics, the ridiculous solution often turns out to be true. i think lisa randall is a brilliant writer. >> i want to remind all of you

that at each table there is a bookmark that has been provided by justice kennedy about rule of law. my next question has to do with the rule of law. justice kennedy was telling me the other day that he teaches in china, in beijing, each year. one of the most difficult tasks for him is to explain or define the rule law -- the rule of law. can you tell us how you do it, and if there really is some way to translate it, and do they get get? >> the phrases are troublesome. it merced you had to wear the yellow star, that is the law. -- hitler set you have to wear the yellow star. but that is not the rule of law. when i was in china in the late 1980's, i was met at the

airport by an attache from of foreign ministry. he said i want you to know, just last week, we adopted the rule of law. [laughter] what he meant was, they had enacted a statute or decree saying that the government was bound by the law. this didn't ask what was the rule of law? the chinese love descriptions of three principles. i said it is binding on the just, and itit is is enforceable and accessible. i used that later to write this out, and it became the guide to the un commission. this is the iconic, and

alterable traditional definition of the rule of law. i think it is the 12th version, and it is just my attempt to explain it. a lot is just -- recently a comment made by justice that i cannot document, the council argued that the supreme court and he says what we seek with this principle is justice. holmes allegedly is credited with saying, young man, this is a court of law, not justice. i don't particularly buy into that philosophy anyway, and i think that is a false choice. that is just a false dichotomy.

you can have a lot less justice. the whole idea of what the appellate court is and what is records do, when you have a problem that has not been resolved yet, you fill in gaps. you can do it one of two ways. you can look at every case, or you can have a principal when you are making law. when you do when you do so, you should do so with the idea of making justice. in most of the world, there are no graduate law schools. the u.s., canada, south africa, recently japan -- the only ones with graduate law schools. lott is undergraduate -- law is undergraduate. that is true in england as well.

you can do graduate -- post- graduate work. in china, the law is graduate -- undergraduate. when i went over there in the early 1980's, i thought the curriculum was broken. te.was by ro you had to memorize the statute of limitations in 50 states. who cares? the college administrators, the president, the provost, the beans -- they all agreed they should change the curriculum. china is no stranger to the academic intransigence. they were not going to change -- the professors. they had been teaching for years. we decided to leapfrog that and have a graduate law school. it is funded completely by the government. it is one of the graduate schools of pekin universe g

city, one of the finest -- university, one of the finest universities in china. it would be 600 students at the end of three years. everything in china is numbers. it is 1.3 billion. if you four get the billion, the 0.3 -- forget billion, the 0.3 makes the em still one of the biggest countries in the world. it was designed to get students with diversity. there were 6000 applications for 200 places. they got it down to 500 and decided to have personal interviews. they wanted standard questions for the interviews. in china, the young people love

movies made in england or the u.s. they seem to be able to watch almost any movie at any time for free. [laughter] they are real movie buffs. they know all of that stuff. one of the standard questions was, why do you want to go to law school? what inspired you to go to laws school? they could not say, might aunt w -- my aunt was ajudge o -- a lawyer. father waws a they would often say that they were inspired by movies. the movie was "legally blonde." [laughter] >> when we were talking about

this the other night, i said "my cousin vinnie." >> i had never heard of this thing. we went out and rented it and watched it. [laughter] when i went over there to teach this class, i understood. in going to this new law school, this new venture, they were taking our risk -- a risk. were not sure this new culture of law -- they were not sure if this new culture of law would be welcoming or effective. it identified with the protagonist -- they identified with the protagonist, reese witherspoon. >> we were speaking with our grandson, talking about you, getting ready for the conference. he asked me what i should know

about you. given your tenure, what you believe is your greatest contribution. how would you like future generations to remember you? >> that is for others to judge. they can put the most -- i think the most difficult case is the one i'm working on today. [laughter] i just hope that my tenure might teach that you have a duty of introspection. it is not just an egocentric exercise. it is to find -- you have to share your reason with your colleagues first and then with the bench, then with the bar. the law will survive because we give reasons for what we do. you must be honest about

examining those reasons. >> thank you. we have several other questions. since we are running a little bit low on time, if anyone would like to ask a particular question of the justice, we have microphones set up. any questions? i see someone coming to the microphone in the back. >> justice kennedy, i was wondering if you could in part -- impart your wisdom regarding the secret of a successful marriage. [laughter] >> we were in china and my wife, mary, is a marvelous school teacher. she was invited to a school -- a high school for women.

then i came because i had a break in the schedule. we were in class together. headmistress' was with us. they were on their good behavior. they knew we were dignitaries from abroad. i started to ask people questions. some girl in the back kept shaking her head. finally, she raised her hand. it was in chinese and had to be interpreted. the headmistress says, uh -- i am not leaving china without knowing that question. [laughter] and so she said, justice kennedy, we're very interested in american cases. can you please explain to us the bobbitt case? [laughter] that was the case in which the woman had the poor taste to

mutilate her husband. of course the class roared with laughter and i got very red. i said, that is why i brought my wife. she can answer that question. [laughter] the secret of marriage is to realize that every day is more beautiful. [applause] >> any other questions? i will ask one last one. is there any message you would like to ipmart -- impart to the judges here and the lawyers? >> i think you should know the admiration and respect that i have for your dedication. i missed the practice of law. i loved the practice of law.

i would just ask judges to remember they are the guardians of freedom, and lawyers to remember that they are the counselors, critics, and the conscience. >> a thank you. >> beautiful. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> and tomorrow's "washington journal," rev. al sharpton will talk about the rally has organized. we will talk about the levy system in borland's -- in new orleans. we'll also talk with ralph reed. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> learn more about the nation's highest court from those who

observed on the bench. read c-span's latest book -- "the supreme court -- candid conversations with all the justices, active and retired." it is now available in hardcover and also as an e-book. >> yesterday, sonia sotomayor spoke to students at the university of denver law school. she talked about her career in the law and the recent decision on miranda rights, in which she dissented. she was appointed by president obama in 2009. this is one hour. >> thank you to all of you for being here. before we begin, i will do the movie reminder. please turn off or silence all of your cell phones. thank you. i would like to double our co- sponsor -- thank are co-sponsor in this -- the colorado campaign for inclusive excellence.

we have been working in colorado and nationwide. i would like to thank the many people who made this possible, especially our associate dean and the event planners. thank you to all of you who made this happen. [applause] if you ever doubt whether strong intellect, hard work, and good, old-fashioned human decency can carry you to the top of the competitive and prestigious professions, you need look no further for inspiration than justice sonia sotomayor. she grew up in the bronx public housing process -- project. she attended high school, then

princeton and yale law school's on full scholarships. -- schools on full scholarships. she excelled in high school debate. for those of you who served on various law reviews -- you have heard my pitch on the benefits of this -- justice sotomayor was an editor on the yale law journal. she served as district attorney in the new york city -- district office. she did commercial litigation in new york, first as an associate, then as a partner. in 1991, president george h. w. bush appointed her to the u.s. district court to the southern district of new york, and then in 1998, president bill clinton elevated her to the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit. in 2009, president barack obama appointed her as associate

justice of the u.s. supreme court. a telling insight about the justice comes from one of her former clerks who came to speak to us yesterday. the clerk pointed out that the justice loves kids of all ages. she sees in them all that is possible and all that is great about us. that is why she is here -- to inspire all of us. please join me in welcoming toast it -- a welcoming justice sotomayor -- in welcoming justice sotomayor. [applause] >so, thank you. let me tell you a little bit about the format. we will begin with questions from five denver-area student

leaders at the center microphone. after their questions have been answered, we will open the floor to questions from all students. to make sure we get a good cross-section of studio audiences, we have divided the floor into blue, green, pink, and yellow. alternate from section -- we will alternate between the sections until the hour is up. our students will make sure each section can get to the microphone. sarah will keep us on track. i will now turn the floor over to our first question. thank you again, justice sotomayor. [applause] >> can i just say thank you to the dene and everyone else who worked on putting this wonderful event together -- dean and

everyone else who worked on putting this wonderful event together? and do all of you who are here -- you touched my heart in a deep and profound way. i thank you for taking the time to share this moment with me. i wish you could stand here in my shoes for a few minutes and look out. it is an absolutely are inspiring feeling he -- awe- inspiring feeling to be standing up here and having you looking up at me. it is a little strange. the whole year for me has been filled with strangeness, but a nice strangeness. each moment has had a measure of magic that i could not repeat that any other moment. thank you for coming today. anyway, let's start with the first question. if you cannot hear me, tell me. i am usually loud enough.

my friends do not complain. [laughter] >> good afternoon, justice sotomayor. my question is, how was life different living from the bronx to princeton university? >> the first week i was in princeton, i spent virtually every night looking for the cricket who was making noise in my room. [laughter] the only cricket i had ever seen was in a cartoon about "jiminy cricket." i knew it had long legs and made bad boys. i took that route apart every single night. -- room apart every single night. on the weekend, one of my friends came to visit me. i told him about the credit. he started to laugh. he told me, it is not in the

room. it is on the three outside the window. i had never -- on the tree outside the window. i had never had a tree outside my window. i felt like i was in an alien land. that is how often described it. it was totally different from anything i had ever experienced. first of all, i do not know if you have seen pictures of princeton. if you have not come and go on the internet and look. it is made up of gothic -- collegiate gothic architecture. it is like it is out of a storybook. there is grass everywhere, trees everywhere, big, beautiful buildings. you almost feel like you're somewhere in europe, walking through four or five centuries ago of history. the people who are there are so different from me. they were from different parts

of the country, many from across the world. many of them had experiences that i had only heard about. they took spring vacations in the bahamas, in europe, and they had read books that i had never even heard of. "ulysses." i have not heard about that when i was in high school. i started to read it and i almost fell asleep. the public is that i was different. i came -- the poll -- the point is that i was different. it took a lot of work to make a life for myself in that environment. did i feel completely apart of princeton when i had left?

i had mastered princeton by all traditional criteria. you may know that i graduated pretty high in my class and received a very prestigious honor their. i had done everything that was expected of a person going to a place like princeton. did i ever feel completely comfortable? do you ever? when you are that different? i am on the supreme court today. i am one of nine extraordinary people. i did not include myself in 993 the other eight are just brilliant. every morning i get up -- in i that nine. that nine. -- i do not include myself in that nine. that nine. the other eight are just brilliant. every morning i get up and know that i can just keep meeting every challenge.

eventually, i will become comfortable enough to say, even if i am a little bit different, it is ok. i guess that is where i am now. it is ok. thanks. [applause] >> they know? ok. >> i am a freshman year at the university of denver. in high school, i was on the the 18 -- debate team. i was curious about your experience with debate in high school and how that impacted your education and how it impacted your eventual nomination to the supreme court. >> i do not know how your debate competition goes on.

when i was in high school, we would show up at a local college somewhere -- not so local. once we traveled to buffalo, got snowed in, and decided i would never go north for college. and i did not. you went into a big room. you were paired into teams. you were handed the topic and the side that you had to argue. you had 15 minutes to organize your thoughts and then the debate started. that exercise probably assisted me in every stage of my professional life as a lawyer. the moment, as a lawyer -- even as a person in almost any profession, that you can see both sides of an issue, that you

can muster the best arguments on either side, and come to a resolution as a debater or a lawyer or a judge, in terms of making a choice after knowing what all of the arguments are, and understanding them, then you feel that you are making a right decision. there is rarely are right or there is rarely are right or wrong answer -- a right or wrong answer. what -- people wonder why the law is not clear. the law is clear. human behavior is not. that is what the law addresses. the activities, relationships of people. anytime you're dealing with that -- when you are applying that conduct to law, it is never quite black and white.

as far as me as a judge goes, and my career, it has always been, have understood all of the arguments on each side? have i fully appreciated what both sides are trying to say to me? and have by then come to a conclusion that i think is commanded by -- i then come to a conclusion that i think is commanded by the law? being on the debate team was the foundation of that learning for me. for all of you who are debaters, it is important, not just if you want to be a lawyer or judge or justice, but in all of your relationships. if you can deal with people by being passionate about your own views, but sensitive to what motivates other people, what their views are, why they think

of it is important, you can improve your relationship with them. [applause] >> good afternoon, justice sotomayor. thank you for coming to our school. i'm the president of the student bar association here. as a law student, i will ask a legal question. since miranda versus arizona was decided in 1966, a long line of decisions has eroded productions persons facing police interrogations' enjoy. -- protections persons facing police interrogations enjoy. there is a heavy burden to prove that someone has waived miranda. there is a warning that any statement can constitute an implied waiver of miranda

rights. you wrote a passionate dissent. do you believe that a majority of the court has expressed the view that the protections of miranda are essentially no longer necessary? in other words, are the purposes of miranda protection -- this is what the law school has done to me. [laughter] in other words, are the main purposes of the miranda protection -- to prevent coercive interrogation -- no longer something the court is concerned about? thank you very much. [applause] >> i am glad you recognize what law school did to you. [laughter] for all the young lawyers in this audience -- or young lawyers to be, when i start talking to my law clerks about legal research, the first thing i tell them to do is to explain

the problem to me without using one word of legalese. i say to them -- because what happens often to lawyers is, you start using legal terms and you forget what they mean. often, if you look at what the legal term means, it gives you a pretty clear answer to whatever question you are looking after. i am not accusing you of that. i am going to translate, i think, what your question meant. [laughter] for the students who did not read it. the court, in the case he mentioned, was faced with the question of whether or not a defendant who had remained silent for a number of hours during police interrogation -- whether he had waived his right to remain silent when a police

officer came up to him and basically asked him whether he had asked god for forgiveness for the murder he had committed. he shook his head yes. i am simplifying the tax greatly, but those are the essence -- the facts greatly, but that is the essence of it. did the defendant, after hours of not saying anything, when he spoke, waived his right to silence? what the majority basically held -- again i am simplifying things for this conversation -. it is always dangerous to do this. he should not take this as a complete explanation. you should always read it. for the purpose of your question, the majority held that, if the defendant knows of his rights, in this case, it was

a clear finding by the below courts and that the defendant knew he had a right to remain silent. if he speaks in the face of that silence, one could assume that he waived his rights. that is, in essence, what the majority said. i descended -- dissented on the prior that the court's cases had demanded that a waiver of the right remained silent -- a waiver of the right to remain silent had to be more explicit. a defendant had to say, yes, i'll waive. i want to talk with you. your silence was not proof of a waiver. there were cases that had said that in the history. do i think that the majority is revoking miranda?

no. one of the most interesting things i was given by justice souter, whose seat i took on souter, whose seat i took on the court -- in one of our first conversations, he said, this job will be eminently easier for you if you except that the people -- accept that the people you're working with our people of good faith. you may disagree with them, but each of them is doing what they think is right under the constitution and the law. you may think they are right about their conclusion, but if you did not ascribed evil motives to them -- do not ascribe evil motives to them, you will find that the disagreement is something you can engage in with passion and respect.

what do i think? i think that i was right. [laughter] i do think they were wrong. some people on the court joined me in saying they were wrong, but not -- it was not done out of an intent to undo miranda. they're holding was that the person who knows their right and chooses nevertheless to speak as made a statement. they believe that. this is a question of your perspective and what you think it works best in terms of your view of the constitution and its protections. [applause] >> hi. i am from denver south. >> what is that?

high school, college? >> high school. cultural issues such as immigration and religious tolerance often make it to the court. should the court considered the political culture of the nation in various decisions? >> one beauty of being a justice for life -- which all federal judges are -- is that we're charged with not considering the political views of the time. we're charged with looking at the constitution and what belongs command -- the law commands. it is difficult to answer that question in the abstract. there are situations in which a certain dangers -- searches and

seizures, for example. we have to make a determination whether certain police conduct in searching either a person or place is reasonable. how do we draw our conclusions on reasonableness? in part, by thinking about what the situation is. under what situation are the police officers doing the confronting? what are the experience is the society has had -- experiences the society has had in those kinds of confrontations? is it political? no. it is a societal situation that we take into account. there are other questions where it would be completely inappropriate for us to look at what the society's political reaction is because the constitution says you cannot.

we do not permit laws that abridge freedom of speech. that is not an absolute law, because there are restrictions to speech that we permit within certain circumstances and not in all. if you are a judge or justice in that situation, you have to be careful to put aside the political views and look at what the law commands you to look at in making your choice. with respect to the situations you are talking about -- religious freedom and immigration law -- i am sure some others did it will ask me my views on those. clearly, i cannot give them. first of all, i have not really examined the arizona law in detail. i have seen what you have seen in the newspapers. i have not read the arguments. i do not know what the other

courts will do. i have not formed an opinion yet and i will not until i hear the case, the same with other issues that involve religious tolerance. there is an important issue involved in these questions that all of you have to bear in mind. by the time the case comes to the court, it is because some dynamic in the society has had a confrontation. it means that interest groups in the society have done something either to create an law or to create a situation that is going to impact another group. that is why waiting for the courts to resolve these issues is not what all of you should be doing, whether you want to be lawyers or not. just to be good citizens -- we should all be actively involved

in shaping laws that get past, it involves -- get passed, involved in changing them when we do not agree with them. waiting for the court to do that is giving away your rights of citizenship. citizenship means participation in the development of our law, our society. for all of you here, there are big and important issues, critical to many communities. i do not know what the answer is. you, individually, may not know what the right answer is, but you have to work at finding it together. you have to work hard at either passing laws that you think to the right thing or changing those which you think to the wrong things. don't wait for the court. start the process much earlier

than when the confrontation develops. [applause] >> afternoon, justice sotomayor. i am a senior here. i am applying to law school to pursue a career as a corporate attorney. what challenges did you face as a corporate litigator, both in general and in terms of your ethnicity? thank you. >> i could give you pat answers. i will try to give you a more direct one. what i found when i moved into the corporate world was that my greatest problem was that i did not have access previously to

people in places of power so that i could make the contacts to get the business that i needed to develop in my firm. a complicated concept, isn't it? law firms are businesses. they need clients. how do people make clients? they usually make them from people they know. generally, not always, but often, the people you grow up with, the people that you go to camp with, the people that you do things with -- they are the people who become your business leaders -- to become business leaders working in corporate settings. through those relationships, they bring new business. when you come from a background like i do, where there was not that corporate familiarity, it becomes harder to make those inroads. obviously i develop some of my

business from my contacts at princeton and yale. those and garments let me meet those kinds of people. -- those environments let me meet those kinds of people. a lot of my friends in the law firm were -- had clients who were people they grew up with or were the parents of their friends from school. i developed my business the different way. you'll learn how to do that when you are challenged and cannot do it in the traditional way. i took the clients that the firm had and figured out what additional business i could develop with those clients. i took three of the firms bigger bigger clientsm's and i developed areas that they had not had with the firm previously. that is what got me the partnership. you have to be creative in meeting challenges.

in terms of entering the corporate area, that was the biggest disadvantage i found. i know that i have spoken previously to other student groups about writing. the biggest challenge that most students -- not just minorities, but frankly the entire population has --is an understanding that the persuasiveness of lawyering is not the argument you make in the court. getting up and talking to a judge -- it really does not matter how articulate or inarticulate you are. if you have a strong case and you have made a persuasive case in your papers, you are going to win. that is probably true about almost anything you do it as a professional. you persuade in your riding. -- in your writing. that is the task that every

student has to spend most time on, in my mind, learning how to write tightly and concisely. that takes a lot of effort. i've talked about what i did in college to improve my own riding. -- writing. i went to the biggest bookstore in new york and bought grammar books from first to 12th grade and spent the whole summer reading those books to teach myself how to write right. i still work at it. it is not natural for most people. it takes practice to do well. if i were going to talk about a second structural challenge to success, it would be improving my riding -- writing. [applause]

>> thank you. the next question will come from a student in the blue section. >> good afternoon, justice sotomayor. sotomayor. i'm a senior at abraham lincoln high school. it is an honor to ask you this question. in your remarks on may 2000 -- may, 2009, you said and the along the lines of, "are at -- our founding fathers have set of principles. times have changed, and so have the principles." what your beliefs about the words "all men are created equal" and calling illegal immigrants "aliens"?

in what direction is immigration reform heading? >> it was the declaration of independence which spoke about all men being equal. they did not mean all men, because they excluded blacks and excluded women. it was not all people are equal. obviously has changed. we have grown into a society borne ferom -- from brown versus board of education that it does mean all men. we have grown through legislative -- not constitutional -- actions -- most people do not recognize this. most of the change in equality for women came through legislative reform. the right to vote.

the court followed with requiring equality of women in the workplace and in other fields in other ways. it was not just the constitution. it was the law that opened the door for women. what will "all men are equal" begun to immigrants is a more complicated question because of the constitutional power over immigration that is given to congress and the president. a change in that area is likely to beat a little slower and -- be a little slower and require much more legislative action ben court action to b, top be frank. to the extent of the country is focused on this, it requires

more meaningful conversation about that principle. what do we, as a country, want equality to me in this situation? there is no clear answer in the constitution. we will find it more in its principles and in the country having a conversation about how it wants that issue to look. [applause] >> the next question will come from a student in the green section. >> i come from thomas jefferson high school where i am a senior. what gave you the motive to become -- to accomplish all the things that you have?

>> i am the most stubborn person you can imagine. [laughter] i really mean that. when i was little, my family used to talk about me being so hard-headed. i know how to work and compromise on issues between people. when it comes to me and doing things, i keep getting knocked down and i will just keep getting up. when i was 2 years old, i did not like eating. i used to bunch up my cheeks like this to shut them so my mom could not show the spoon in -- shove the spoon in. my mother would put her hands around my cheeks and forced it down my throat -- force it down my throat. we would do that for hours.

[laughter] every time i did something that she thought i was wrong, she would put me in one of the timeout corners and say, come out whenever you change your mind. i would sit there forever. she would have to give in to call me to dinner. these are not great qualities. [laughter] i can assure you she did not think so when i was little. there is an essence to the idea that every time you get knocked it down, you get up and try again. that is sometimes really hard to do. when you get embarrassed over failure -- that happens to me -- you get embarrassed and you want to walk away. there is nothing more degrading

to yourself than when you feel you have been embarrassed. and yet, getting up and saying, ok, how my going to not let this beat me? what do i have to do to make this work? try again. go a different way around it. that is what has helped me succeed. i do not often tell this story. when president clinton nominated me to the court of appeals, i was not certain i wanted to go. i loved being a district court judge. i was not sure i wanted to leave being a trial judge. a lot of people started putting up resistance to my appointment. [laughter] one day, i looked at a bunch of

my friends and i said, why am i fighting so hard for a job i am not even sure i want? i answered my own question by saying, if they had not fought so hard, i would have given up earlier. i could not let them beat me. as i said to you, that is hard to say to people. when you fail, it is just tough to try again. it is really worth it. you will eventually get through. [applause] >> thank you, your honor. now, a question from a student in the ping exception -- pink section. >> hi. i am and 8 greater -- an eighth grader.

how did you feel when president obama nominated you to be judged on the supreme court? -- to be a judge on the supreme court? >> let me tell you what happened that day. i got up at 6:00 in the morning to go to the white house. i was going to get ready to go meet the president and have him announce my nomination. as i walked into the room where we were going to meet the president, my whole family was there. they had been brought from florida and syracuse to the white house. we were sitting around. i was hugging and kissing everyone. the president and vice president walked in. from that moment till almost today, i have been living a

fantasy. i have often said i keep waiting for someone to pinch me and wake me up. i do not really want them to, but i keep imagine it is going to happen any moment now. when i walked from the back towards the podium, it was like my whole body started floating in space. there was sonia walking and talking and getting kissed by the vice president and the president. i was totally shocked. it is impossible to describe what a moment like that is. i heard the president talking about me, saying things i did not even know. [laughter]

and it was the most exhilarating, the most incredible moment anyone could ever have. the most special part of this whole process, for me, and i say this to you so that you go away from this experience with me today aspiring to reach a moment like that for yourselves. despite all of the wonderful things that had happened to me, perhaps the most terrific was perhaps the most terrific was watching my younger brother cry on television. [laughter] do you know why? i knew he loved me. i never knew he loved me so much. if you have a moment in your lives where you can share a special event with your family

and look at them and look at the joy they are getting and the joy they are feeling for you, it really is the most touching part of this experience. when i say watching my brother cry, what i mean is learning how deeply he loves me. i hope you have that opportunity to feel how much they love you. to feel how much they love you. [applause] >> next question. >> i am a senior at the

contemporary learned academy. thank you for the wonderful opportunity that you have given us today. the odds you have overcome our extraordinary. -- are extraordinary. what advice would you give to young people who feel they are being held back by their financial situation? thank you. >> i do not want to be flip, because i do not intend to. but i actually believe in getting into debt for education. for me, there is nothing more important long-term, then getting the best education that you can add whatever cost you -- at whatever cost you have to pay. that often means getting more loans than you think you can

afford, and working more jobs than you think you can do, but i do not think there is an opener to doors in this society greater than education. education open your eyes -- opens your eyes to the world and it lets you fly without a plane. it lets you experience the world in a very direct way, because it lets you think about things more deeply and more sensitively then you could on your own -- than you could on your own. it is about learning things you would not seek or experience in your everyday environment. you cannot let money hold you back. it means sacrifice. i actually started working when

i was in high school, during my freshman year summer. i worked summers and all year round. i worked for two years at two jobs, even on a full scholarship. i know it is hard and tough, but you just cannot let it get you down. you have to do a lot of research on looking for every financial assistance out there. i got a scholarship from the new york state rehabilitation society. ands a juvenile diabetic i did not know that i qualified. i applied and got it. who would have thunk? i didn't. i was researching every

scholarship. i found out my local church had a scholarship, so i tried for it. was not big money. it was small amounts that added up. that put me through college. [applause] >> good afternoon, your honor. i am a junior. i was wondering what was your main goal that you wanted to achieve by becoming a supreme court justice? what do you want to most influence? thank you. >> when i was being prepared for my senate hearings, one of the questions i was asked was, when i die, what is the legacy that i want people to talk

about? that is the one preparation question that i had the most difficulty with. i will explain why. i am one of nine. i cannot actually influenced the development of any area -- any specific area -- influence the development of any specific area unless i can convince others to interpret them in the way i think is right. to talk about a legacy in a particular area of law is not something i am equipped to do. so, if it is not a change in law, because we did not make it, we interpret and apply it, then

what is the legacy i could leave as a supreme court justice? what i came to, in terms of answering that for myself, was i hope that, at the end of my legacy, people will say to me that she was a justice that people understood and knew appreciated their problems, and that the decisions i reached were always based on a principle based in law. if i can be known as someone who respects law, then i can teach others and guide them into what is happening in our society. is happening in our society. if i can understand the issues

they are involved in, i will have fulfilled my legacy. [applause] [applause] >> good afternoon. i am from the denver center for international studies. i am a jew near there. i am a jew near there. -- i'm a junior there. what is the biggest sacrifice what is the biggest sacrifice you have had to make in your life and why? >> this is getting more personal than you may want. [laughter]

it was taking this job when i know that i am on the tail end of my mother's life. for those of you who are young year, you probably cannot appreciate that. my mother's health is not perfect and i know that. she went into the hospital two days ago in florida. i am not there. i knew that the responsibilities of this work were likely to keep peace -- keep me from spending as much time with her as i would want during this stage of her life. that has been my biggest sacrifice. [applause] >> thank you, your honor.

>> good afternoon. >> good afternoon.

>> there is -- as i said to you earlier today, there is no black-and-white line. it is all very much a gray area. how much the courts will permit, but congress to go in terms of was that it passes, each a statute will raise a different set of questions and a different set of balancing.

there is no clear answer to your question. >> i go to palmer high school in colorado springs. i was wondering, in your use, did you experience agrees to profiling -- did you experience racial profiling? if so, how did you overcome that? >> not in the way that many others do. i have a white skin tone.

that is really helpful to avoiding profiling. it is not likely -- i came over the border with a friend many years ago and she was a mexican- american citizens from california and we were in the car together and they stopped our car and the only one the pullout was hurt. -- they pulled out was hurt. if that was because she was dark skin. -- as they pulled out was her. that was because she has dark skin. i have an understanding of what the larger society's expectations of me are. so, i have understood -- it was very painful on the court of appeals and on the supreme court nomination process that people kept accusing me of not being smart enough.

smart enough. can someone explain to me -- >> tonight, we have been looking at a series of events of supreme court justices and we go live to an event were justice ruth bader ginsberg discusses her husband's book. >> we have rest bitter against bird back with us again tonight. -- ruth they are ginsburg back with us again tonight. -- justice ruth bitter ginsburg with us again tonight. she attended law school before returning to law school. she made law review and became the first woman to achieve that honored position at two major schools and after a year at columbia, she gradually did at the top of her class.

the years following -- she graduated at the top of her class. the years following, she had some interesting matters in the 10th circuit. she battled maternity leave rights for teachers. she was the first woman hired with tenure at columbia law school. her star continued to rise three it should join various law associations and committees. president jimmy carter nominated her to serve as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals. she served as a justice until president clinton nominated her to succeed our own legendary byron r. white. in 1993, she became the second woman on the supreme court. joe biden said that justice ginsburg was a nominee that

holds a rich vision of what the constitution promises of liberty balanced by a measured approach to the job of judging. a couple of years ago, the ginsbergs were visiting my wife and me in santa fe and i invited marty to deliver a speech. he asked why me. i told him it was because he was the funny tax guide. [laughter] i thought that he would come and talk about tax law, but instead, he prepared another speech. after his untimely passing, justice ginsburg called me and said that she would like to come give that speech tonight. that speech tells about part of her career in the 10th circuit which created a legacy for law

that we could all be very proud of. will you join me in welcoming justice was bitter ginsburg. -- justice ginsburg. [applause] >> my dear husband who was a great tax lawyer got an extension for our 2009 tax return. but he had his 10th circuit speech all written out and i know he would want you to hear it.

bear with me, my timing will not be like his, but i will do the best that i can. as you have heard, my field is tax law. when chief judge henry asked me to speak to you today, he hinted it might be on my favorite subject. naturally, i prepared a long paper addressing the supreme court's performance in tax courses. surprisingly, he reacted with hostility. [laughter] i will only speak instead about the only significant thing in my life when i will recall to you the one case in which we serve as co-counsel for it it was also the one occasion that either of us were privileged to argue in the 10th circuit.

fascinating as you will surely find this reminiscence, all in all, you are the losers, for i promise you that the supreme court's performance in tax cases is an exceedingly funny subject. [laughter] in the 1960's, i practiced law in new york city and ruth began her law teaching career at rutgers law school in new york. one of the courses she taught was constitutional law and she started looking into equal protection issues that might be presented by statutes that differentiated on the basis of sex. a dismal academic undertaking because back then the united states supreme court had never invalidated any legislative classification that

differentiated on the basis of sex. then, as now, at home, ruth and i worked evenings in adjacent rooms. her room is bigger, and i must interject. it is not so. in my little room, one evening, in the fall of 1970, i was reading a tax cheat and came across a litigant who, on a stipulated record, was denied a $600 dependent care deduction even though the tax court found the operative facts, save one, but the statute perfectly.

his 89-year-old depended mother lived with him -- dependent mother lived with him. charles payton unrelated individual at least $600, in fact a good deal more than that, to take care of his mother when he was away at work. and there was just one small problem. in the tax court, it served to do him in. the statue awarded the deduction to a taxpayer who was a woman of any classification, a married couple, a widowed man or a divorced man. but not to a single man who had never married. mr. morris was a single man,

unmarried. deductions are a matter of legislative greece. if the taxpayer were raising the constitutional objective, forget about it. everyone knows that the tax code is immune from constitutional attack. [laughter] let me digress for a moment to tell you that in the tax court, although not a lawyer, he had written a brief. it was one page and it said, "if i were a dutiful daughter instead of a dutiful son, i would have received that deduction. that makes no sense. " it was from that brief that the

court thought he may be raising a constitutional objection. that remains in my mind. it was the most impressive brief i have ever read. when i went into the big room next door -- [laughter] i handed the advance sheet to my spouse and folder to read it. ruth replied with a warm not, "i don't read tax cases." [laughter] i told her to read this one and returned to my little room. not more than five minutes later, it was a short opinion, ruth stepped into my little room and with the broadest smile you can imagine said that we should take it and we did. we took the appeal, pro bono, of

course, but since the plant was not indigent, we needed a pro bono organization. we thought of the aclu. they wished to review our proposed 10th circuit brief which was 90% ruth's and the rest mine. when they read the brief, he was greatly persuaded. a few months later, the aclu had its first sex discrimination people protection case in the u.s. supreme court. -- equal protection case in the supreme court. nell asked ruth if she would take the lead in writing the supreme court brief on behalf of appellate sally reed. ruth did and reversed the

decision of the idaho supreme court when the supreme court upheld for sally. it was good for sally and ruth, who decided to hold down to jobs at columbia where she had moved from rockers and the other as head of the aclu -- from rutgers university and the other as head of the aclu. now, back to morris. the 10th circuit found mr. morris to have been denied equal protection and therefore reduced -- reversed the case and allowed him to take his $600 deduction. amazingly, the government's decision was served. the 10th circuit decision cast a

cloud of on constitutionality over hundreds of federal statutes, losaws that differentiated solely on the basis of sex. in those pre computer days, and there was no way for us to test the government's assertion, but to but the attached to the position -- the petition a list of those hundreds of suspect federal statutes. he was denied and the computer list was a gift beyond price. [laughter] over the balance of the decade, in congress, the supreme court

and other courts, ruth successfully urged the and constitutionality of those statutes. -- the and constitutionality of those statutes. -- the un constitutionality of those statutes. -- the unconstitutionality of those statutes. those statutes. this would help force the litigation that brief actively pursued until she joined the d.c. circuit in 1980. all in all, and great achievements from a tax case told exactly $296.70. as you can see, in bringing those tax advance sheets to

ruth's big room 40 years ago, i changed history. [laughter] [applause] for the better. i rendered a significant service to the nation. i have decided to believe that it is the significant service that led to my being invited to speak to you today. even if you had in mind a topic below less cosmically significant and substantially more humorous, such as a supreme court performance in tax cases, ruth and i are truly delighted to be back with you in the 10th circuit once again. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you, please be seated. i better take this with me. >> can someone help us move this podium?

[no audio]

>> try that. justice ginsburg, thank you for this unforgettable moment. it is incredibly moving to have you join us tonight and share your memories of marty and his work room and his tribute to you. i am greg kerwin. it was president franklin roosevelt's who held a series of fireside chats on the video beginning in 1933 in the deaths of the great depression -- the depths of the great depression. those intimate talks reassured a scared nation.

here, tonight, nestled in this beautiful location at the foot of pikes peak, my vision of the fireside chat is more like that of a camper's campfire talk in a national park. we tried to get a fire going in your, but the marshals were not happy about that. -- going in here, but the marshals were not happy about that. we will gain insight about their lives and their contributions to our justice system. this fireside chat is a signature event for the historical society. sandra day o'connor joined us in 2006 and justice stephen briar in 2008. with tonight's program, we could not find two more interesting guests. i will come so many of our members tonight. you are the people that make this impossible.

for those who are not already members, please join us. you can sign up tonight. we need your support to come to new -- to continue to make these programs possible. for the remainder of this unique program, we are thrilled to welcome justice ginsburg back and beverly mclaughlin and learn about their careers. robert will introduce the talk. he began in 1994 as a circuit judge and then chief judge and he decided this year to tackle a new challenge and become president of oklahoma city university. please join me in welcoming robert henry.

[laughter] -- [applause] >> welcome again. i am getting in touch with my feminine side this evening. >> it is about time. [laughter] >> i have been introduced justice ginsburg and a black to introduce our other two panelists. justice beverly mclaughlin is the first female chief justice of the supreme court of canada and was the first one appointed to that court. she received her b.a. and m.a. degree. she won the gold medal for being

the top student there and was editor in chief of the alberta law review. she is the chairperson of the canadian judicial council, the board of governors, and the advisory council of the order of canada. she has been awarded 21 honorary doctor of law degrees. in a speech, she laid out many of the difficult roles of the judiciary. she concluded with four myths that she thought should be abandoned by the public. these myths were that there was always one right little answer to a dispute. two, there was one right factual answer to a dispute through the three, a judge's mind is a blank slate and they decide in mechanical, not human ways. and finally, that the judge is

superhuman. >> i changed my mind on the last one. >> i was going to say, when i think of you, i change my mind on the last winter it will come to being with us tonight. >> thank you. [applause] >> nina totenberg is back with us tonight. her father is still teaching violin at the university and has stopped his active concert career. nina has won so many awards. she won an award for excellence in broadcasting did she won -- broadcasting. she has been honored seven times what the american bar association. she is a frequent contributor to major newspapers and periodicals. including the "new york magazine" and others.

she is an honor recall rotten -- and moderate colorado -- an honorary coloradoan. >> when ruth ginsburg was nominated to the supreme court, i took myself over to the watergate and interviewed marty. almost verbatim, he told me that story. at some point, i needed to look up that case and i could not find it. i could not find it for anything because i heard charles morris, not charles moritz. i was looking up the wrong name. do you know what became of mr. morris? what kind of contact to have with him? >> all i know for sure is that

he took great care of his mother, even when she was 93. [laughter] >> i wonder how hard a sell was it to the 10th circuit back then? >> you are asking -- they did not considered an easy case, although they came to the right conclusion and had a perfect opinion. [laughter] >> my notion was so we were going to pass sally reed's case with charles moritz's case. it did not work out that way. the 10th circuit took a long time to decide this case.

it was well over a year between the argument and the decision. by that time, sally reed's case was in the supreme court and so we did not have the perfect pairing. >> i think that the judge has a comment. >> sometimes it takes us a while to get it right. [laughter] >> judge holloway is still working six days a week. you had another interesting 10th circuit case involving stillwater, oklahoma. credit verses' boren. >> oklahoma had a very city law. [laughter] >> it said that girls could by

the near beer at age 18, but the boys had to wait until age 21. the thursday boy is -- the thirsty boys brought this case. i did not become involved until it was in the 10th circuit. they did not make it a class action. they did not think that was necessary because if it took a long time, there was an endless supply of 18 year-old in the fraternities. [laughter] >> it was a convenience store owned are a woman. it was to her advantage to be able to sell her beer to the boy is. it happened that craig turned 21

after the supreme court agreed to hear the case. a lawyer from stillwater moved to substitute another plaintiff. the u.s. supreme court said no. that left the owner of the convenience store absolutely dependent on the case. it was a wonderful third party standing case. [laughter] >> no one denied her equal protection, but she felt the economic effect of the discrimination against the thursday -- thursday -- thirsty boys. the case was going to be the case where the court announced an elevated review standards for

the classification. no longer >> a rational basis do, but heightened scrutiny would apply to all such classifications. we wished they would take another case to make that announcement. we were very pleased that after that, gender based classification would be looked at closely and would not pass muster unless there was an exceedingly persuasive justification for the classification. we have an anniversary of the case in oklahoma city. the case was 20 years old. the store owner was there and she said that she wanted to sell her convenience store, but

she knew that it might be important for her to be in the case and so she held onto it. there was greg, i think he had become a lawyer -- there was greg, i think he had become a lawyer -- craig. i think he had become a lawyer. [laughter] the mother of the very first thirsty boy, and we had a lovely time. [laughter] chief justice but laughlin -- chief justice mclaughlin, you were the third woman on the canadian supreme court and there are now four. we all know that in sociology they tell us that there is a

point when there is a critical mass when a minority -- when a group that has not been part of the action suddenly its sea legs and really has more influence than it did when it was a much smaller portion of the institution, what ever that institution is. i wonder if that has been true at all on the canadian supreme court. >> i have been a woman of one on a state or provincial appellate court, which was quite lonely. when i came on the supreme court of canada it becomit was a muchr

situation than i had been before in terms of dynamics. i still felt that there was, shall we say, we do not use this phrase quite the way you do, but a higher level of scrutiny. even though we worked three -- we were three. i would be judged not only for what i say in conference, but there would be some fought in the back of one of my colleagues minded that she is saying that because she is a woman or whatever. i am not complaining, it was a wonderfully welcoming atmosphere, but the numbers made you paranoid. i know my female colleagues felt the same way.

there is this perspective that some how, there is this dynamic going on. -- somehow, there is this dynamic going on. i do think that things have changed. i think that we have arrived at the point on our court where people don't think in terms of gender. i think that we just think of each other and interact with each other as colleagues. i will just addled and it don't. some people -- i will just add a lot antidote. -- little antidote. the first woman leaned over and whispered in my heranear and sad

it three down, 6 to go. [laughter] i thought i was pretty good. when you get on the supreme court, and i have been reading all boaabout the speeches. you are called on to go to the cities in your country and everybody is watching you and seeing what kind of a person you are. i went to edmonton for my making baby and i made a little speech and i told this story. there was a huge of rare on the letters to the editor -- up for in the letters to the editor -- uproar to the letters of the editor. i felt terrible about this. i went back home and i thought

about it and i said it was well over 100 years and they had all men and the world -- the country did not go to rack and ruin. i think that the more gender parity we can get, it helps normalize the whole atmosphere on a court. >> how is it with the lawyers that appear before you? >> they do not call you by the wrong names? >> in the proportion of women. >> that was much smaller, too. it was tough in the early days. the young women were a phenomenon at that time and they were fairly regarded and that was in the early 7 -- early

1970's. quite a number of them were successful and they were always fair minded around. these were competent people and we would hire them and get them to take our case. while there was some differential treatment, i think there were enough right minded people around to make it possible to start a career. >> i have thought somewhat about this lightly. justice ginsburg and justice o'connor and me are a generation where we were often the only one. the post-war generation of women, the first two woman on

our supreme court were sort of superwomen. they got married young, they have children, they had careers for the were always the only one. justice ginsberg hid her pregnancy for fear that she would lose her job at walker street the next two women are different generation -- her job at rutgers university. the next two women are different generations. people expect them to work very long hours. it definitely crimps their style as far as finding a mate, having a family, all of those things. i wonder if he would tell the story about your son of james --

your son james when he was about 10:00 p.m. -- when he was about 10. the outside world treats women's careers. >> this was in the early 1970's. james was a lively child, but the schools just called it hyperactive. [laughter] i would get calls at least once a month to come down from my office at columbia law school to the school where james was to be told about my son's latest escapade. one day i got such a call and i was particularly weary and i said that this child two parents. i suggest you alternate calls.

[laughter] >> and it is his father's turn. [laughter] [applause] >> they did call marty. marty gets there and there is the school principal and the teacher and the school psychologist and the school principal tells marty, "your child stole the elevator." marty asked him how sorry -- how far he could take it. [laughter] even though jameses behavior did not change significantly, the call came less than once a

semester because they were much more concerned about taking a man away from his job than calling a mother. >> chief justice, you have a witty husband also. witty husband also. have you ever fall any work off of him in a similar way? -- a formal any work off of him innocent -- funnelled any work off of him in a similar way? i will suggest that he be consulted. >> he is always more than willing to be there. there is a different expectation. i think that parenting has changed a lot. there are a lot of fathers that are involved, but there is still

this thing in school and other child care and education situations where for some reason, there is the expectation that the mother would be the default caregiver in all situations and i think that a lot of women feel this themselves. i say to young women that are my law clerks that are starting out, i tell them that you have to figure route if this is what you really want to be. -- to figure out if this is what you really want to be. there are still assumptions in society that the mother is the default caregiver. my first husband is the father of my first child and he has since passed away. but they were very suspicious of

me, asking if the child had a mother. i was very fortunate that my husband was able -- he was working at the university and i was working a way -- working the way -- working away. he was a little more available and it happened that you got a lot of the calls. . for me, it is still a problem for families to work out. >> i want to ask each of you something from a somewhat different perspective. justice ginsburg, you were confirmed for your position on the supreme court in 1993.

in terms of our politics, we would have to say it was light years ago. chief justice, you have watched our confirmation process from afar. i want to ask you what you think of it and how you do it in canada, and you, how different it is then than what it is now. >> we do not have a constitutional confirmation process. under our constitution, the prime minister can name anyone who is qualified and there are certain qualifications to be justice on the supreme court. that is the way it has been for all of our history.

it has produced judges who come from different regions. generally, what prime ministers have done is to look at the leading lawyers and judges in that area and then they choose someone from that area. that was the historical pattern. we, in canada, it is sometimes said in canada that the united states is the elephant, and if it rolls over, we are deeply affected. we have a wonderful relationship and much admired your country. journalists admire your confirmation procedure excessively. there have been, and the last

couple decades, 15 years or so, a movement in canada that we should introduce a confirmation process. the argument is that the prime minister has too much power. process is not open or transparent. under response to that political pressure, wind marshall rothstein was nominated, he said that there would be a confirmation process. this is not provided for in our constitution. he said that this was his can of it. he had agreed to go before a parliamentary committee and answer their questions.

there would be television cameras there and journalists there. so, that happened. the committee was very polite. they were supervised or coached a little bit and told what was going on and told what questions might be appropriate. it came out very well. marshall came out extremely well and i think this was really good. there were some advantages to that. the next time a vacancy are rose, we were in a minority government situation -- vacancy arose, we were in a minority government situation. they were not able to get a committee together. the prime minister decided that the time had come to fill the vacancy and the officers decided

that they would proceed without the confirmation hearing. our last justice was not -- it did not have a confirmation process or parliamentary interview. where are we now in canada? i am not sure. the prime minister said that we will return to this kind of hearing. there is a debate going on in canada. we watch what is going -- what is happening in the united states and we will continue to watch. >> you are being very political center did not answer my question. >> i would like to ask beverly, for this first hearing, how long did the hearing take? i think it was quite brief -- to

line >> i think it was quite brief, -- >> i think it was quite brief, just a few hours. i am not going to answer that question. [laughter] [applause] >> the way it is now, it was not ever felt -- we go back to when i was nominated to the job that i now have, and there was chief justice burger. he had been on the d.c. circuit and he came to my chambers to congratulate me on the nomination. he said, "when i have my hearing to become the chief justice of the united states, my hearing

lasted exactly one hour." i said that one word would explain the difference and that word is television. the people on the senate judiciary committee have all of that free time. i do not know if saudia has had this experience, -- if sarnia has had this experience -- sonia has had this experience. they were talking through me to their constituents to show how up-to-date, how intelligent the senator was. i think television is responsible for the length of our hearings. the cordiality -- steve briar

and i were the beneficiaries of a much different senate than the one it that is sitting now. i think my meetings -- my hearings were rather boring. i had been a general counsel of the american civil liberties union. there was not a single question about my affiliation from the senate judiciary committee. that would not happen today. senator orrin hatch, who voted against me, was my senate booster on this committee. he was the minority member on the committee. there was a bipartisanship. as i said, steve and i were the beneficiaries of it. i hope, some day, we will get

back to that. >> speaking of the press, in canada, use a press the press -- you suppress the press. it will you explain how you do it in canada? >> a number of years ago, we were concerned about miss reporting -- misreporting, and we developed the idea that we would ask the press what they needed from us to do a better job. we now have a committee that is the press liaison committee and we meet regularly with members of the press. the press is involved in reporting on supreme court matters.

one of the key things is that the executive legal officer to the chief justice would be the equivalent to chief justice council in united states. it is a liaison for the press. when a case is going out, we announce three or four days in advance that this case will be going out on such and such a time. then, the legal officer goes down to a press room in the courthouse and she is available to meet with members of the press who choose to come. they can ask her questions about the case. she will direct them to where the answers are in the judgment. if they are interested in

getting a 32nd sound bite, she might even assists and say that if you want to go 30 seconds, this is the essence of it. she tries to ensure that they understand the case and what its significance this. that has been very helpful and very useful -- what its significance is. that has been very helpful and very useful in improving the quality of the reporting period we have -- of the reporting peri. they can breed -- read it and when the judgment is released, they can go online, television, radio or whatever and they can get it right and did it right

quickly. with the media, time matters and they are concerned about getting these things out quickly. we think that it works very well. sometimes, the third thing that we do on an important constitutional case, we will have a pre-briefing about a week before the judgment comes out. the media officer goes over the facts and issues. they can find a way to think about how they want to write the story. this has been underway for 15 years or more, and we find that we have good relations with the

press. another thing that happens often is that if someone is writing a story, they want to know if they have it right. not all of our journalists are trained lawyers. they feel free to phone up this person and ask if they have understood this properly. did they get the plaintiff and defendant mixed up on this one? that can be of assistance, too. this is what we are doing. >> in the lockup, what do you do? the press will get the opinion before anyone else does to make sure that there is not going to be an attempt to get a scoop by using a blackberry? >> we deprive them of all electronic appat