going to lose this year. they are going to have a hard time. if we're going to get anything done in this country, democrats, listen up. all we have to do is get 63 seats in the senate. forget the 60. we have people that are just not going to vote with the democratic party anyway. but the of thing is, nevada, listen, harry reid has done a great job for this country. he has been good for america. do not let him lose that. i smiled when he said that -- guest: i smiled when he said

that because you had republicans win a seat that is something as a rhode islander i did not think i would see in my lifetime. when you have a party without much power, they can actually push back a little bit. 60 seats might solve the problem -- solve some problems, but create a bunch of others. host: we have run out of time. thank you all for being here this morning and kicking off our summer series. all this week we are looking at politics. thank you for coming on. we need to go now to the national press club. there is an event happening this morning, looking at threats to judges. thanks for watching the "washington journal". [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

first of all, you have to remember -- or you have to get a physical picture in your mind of what our courtrooms are like. our hearings -- hearing rooms are approximately three square feet or less. that is slightly the average than the average bedroom in an average house in america.

at the conclusion of a hearing, the judge making her notes, getting ready to prepare her final decision in the case was not looking forward, but rather, looking down at writing her notes. the claimant in that case pick up a chair and because the judge andeparating the die a the climate was so close to the judge, hit the judge over the head and altman reclaim her to -- a force her to take -- ultimately forced her to take disability retirement. we examine witnesses, call

witnesses, subpoena witnesses. at the conclusion, we issue the written decision, which includes the finding of facts, as well as the recommended decision. the difference is, we are attached to a federal agency. to be sure, we are constitutional judges, but not under article 3. we hear cases under article 2. we do not have the same kinds of security that you would normally find in an article 3 courtroom. we are not in federal buildings for the most part. and we are not in federal court

buildings for the most part. where you will always see entry level kind of security items, detection equipment, x-rays getting -- are private office buildings because many -- because many other businesses occupied building, there is no security. you go into the courtrooms and there is a contract guard that is responsible for other people

responsible for that area and for other courtrooms at the same time. we believe we believe that is unacceptable in today's world. one guard is not adequate in a busy disability adjudication process. we have a tremendous backlog and we have multiple hearing rooms, courtrooms and running simultaneously throughout the day. it is a busy operation. not only is the claimant comes -- andresse understandably, because of delays in the hearing and the unfortunate economic circumstances that these individuals often find themselves in, some are even

homeless. some families are going without regular meals because they are waiting on disability decisions. nonetheless, that does not excuse the government's responsibility to provide a safe and secure courtroom for administrative law judges to conduct these hearings. and safe and secure areas in the office for the american people who come to visit. this is critically important. what i would like to suggest to you, there are a number of things that we believe should be considered. remember, the threats that i offered to you involve only five or six cases over the past four years, there have been approximately 200 similar kinds

of threats. unfortunately, some of those threats have been acted on. let me give you some things i did the government has to do to be more responsible. hearing rooms, courtrooms, our educator's have to be larger. they simply are not large enough to design a safe working arrangement. many times you are forced to have the parties with the trial tables touching the judge's bench. distance is an important aspect of security. we need adequate railings in every courtroom. railings that are sufficiently high enough -- we know they will not stop anyone who wants to jump over them, but at least to slow the individual down, to

give the judge and the judge's staff an opportunity to escape. that is the purpose of the railing. other areas that i think are critically important, rather than have one guard available in this rather huge operation, we need multiple cards available. guards that would be in the reception area, guards that would be available to actually go into the hearing room when the judge needs a guard in the hearing room. we need the agency to change its present procedure that requires the judge -- believe it or not, requires the judge to actually seek the claimants approval before you bring a garden to the hearing room regardless of what kind of information you may

have in the file about the propensity of the individual committing a hostile act towards the judge. -- must get approval from the claimant to bring a guard to the hearing room. we believe consideration should be given to open our hearings to the american public and the press. we believe justice is better served when it is achieved in the light of day. another very important factor that needs more focus is that all staff in a courtroom hearing office operation needs to have regular security-type training on how to respond to these kinds of crises that we have had over

the years. also, we need the agency to o nowre the guards whh completed incident reports when the threat is made, what the agency does not require is a report on what happens to that report. it is one thing to make note of threats being made or even make note of some physical contact. quite another for the agency to take action. as we understand the process presently, there is no final report being made. and, if so, none that would be available to us. or to the judge.

we know that there's a great cost factor insecurity. it is an unfortunate circumstance that we find ourselves in, i think, when we cry out for additional security. but we also believe that no judge should be sitting in a courtroom in circumstances where he or she may be fearful of physical harm. that is wrong. that is wrong anywhere, but particularly wrong in this wonderful democracy. there are, obviously, things congress can do to help in the budget arena, but we also believe there are things the agency can do. one example is that we have, as part of the office of disability adjudication and review, which is the administrative judiciary component of the social security

administration, we have regional offices. we believe that those offices who have little or no hands on responsibility for disposing of disability cases should be reduced substantially in size, saving millions, hundreds of millions of dollars and those resources be placed into the security of our courtrooms. we also believe that it is probably appropriate for congress to take a hard look at whether it is now time for a separate administrative judicial agency, that is removing the disability judges from the parent social security administration into and a separate judicial operation where security could be better

controlled and better managed. myth that i will close write remarks and know that at the end of our presentation, we will be available to answer any questions. at that time, you will also see another judge, up, judge mark brown, the chair of our health and safety committee. he may be able to answer some questions that you have. in any event, thank you very much. i will yield to judge marks. >> good morning. thanks, everybody, for coming. i would like to express the sincere appreciation of the national association for of immigration to the national press club and to the international federation of professional and technical engineers, our parent union that has helped us, if to have this opportunity to make our concerns broadly known. my name is judge dana leigh

marks. i am an immigration judge in san francisco, california. i am the president of the national association of immigration judges. people are often surprised, judges have a union? as an employee of the department of justice, i would not be allowed to speak publicly about policy or my concerns, that is an edict that the department of justice has that applies to all employees. however, as the president of the national labor union, i have the right to speak out. so i want to make sure everyone understands today i am speaking in my capacity today as president of the national association of immigration judges and not as an individual immigration judge or representative of the department of justice. many people do not understand what happens at immigration courts. yet we have some of the highest volume of any tribunal in the united states.

last year there were approximately 275,000 cases which were adjudicated by approximately 230 immigration judges nationwide. we are the trial level court that hears the claims regarding whether or not someone is in the united states without proper authorization. the department of homeland security issues the charging documents and that person has a right, generally, to have a hearing before an immigration judge. when i went to law school, i thought everything was left -- was like the block programs on tv. what you see immigration courts if are settings which are far more like traffic court, which many of us have had experience with. there are high-volume proceedings where you are given very little time to express your point of view and have the judge

listened to what you feel is your side of the story. we also deal with particularly vulnerable population. we have people seeking asylum in the united states. some of them have been severely traumatized and physically mistreated. they could be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. we have people who are victims of domestic violence come before our courts. if we have unaccompanied minors in a strange country all alone without proper supervision. we have people that have mental illness. we have people who are convicted of crimes. the people who come before our courts are often long-term residents, some with documentation and some without. sometimes, if the department of homeland security is wrong, we have united states citizens appearing in our tribunal and who need to establish that fact. to understand the volumes, i

think it helps to realize that at any given time an immigration judge has a pending caseload of approximately 1200 cases on average while a federal district court judge has approximately 400. the majority of people and will appear before immigration judges do not have legal representation. there is no right to representation at the cost of the government even though the stakes of our proceedings are exceedingly high. many of the people who appeared before the immigration judge are detained. ironically, the people who are in -- immigration judges have better security in the detained settings, unlike myself. we are hearing death penalty cases in traffic court settings.

when someone comes in front of me and says they are returning -- afraid of returning to their homeland because they fear persecution, the decision i render could be a death sentence if i am wrong. if someone has a criminal record but argues that he or she has been rehabilitated after living in the united states many years, if i order that person to move from the united states, i am banishing them from the only country they may have known. that is a pretty emotional issue. unlike social security judges, i think, we render decisions at the end of a hearing, right there in real time looking eye to eye with the person who is claiming police. if we have denied their case, they are right there experiencing all that emotion and all that potential anger if the case does not go their way.

similar to social security judges, many of our courts are located in commercial buildings. some are in federal buildings and have the same kind of security that is available to federal court judges, but many of our courtrooms are in commercially-leased spaces. that means there's no secured entrance or exit. having just ordered someone removed, i may go down the elevator with them. there are no separate parking or secure parking facilities in many of those locations. some have no fixed magnetometers, only a roving guards with wands. we do not have the lives inside the courtrooms. -- do 9 havnot have bailifs. i can have as many as 50 people in my coat room without a

bailiff. we don't have as much hard data as the social security judge have compiled because our organization, the department of justice, the executive office for immigration review, has not compiled statistics that have been released to us. but i can tell you some horror stories my colleagues have reported. one of my colleagues reported that the brake lines to her vehicle were cut while in the parking lot at work. another colleague reported that there was gang graffiti in her courtroom. during the anthrax scare, an immigration judge received a letter containing white powder. another judge was grabbed by the robe by an irate responded. another judge experienced someone attempting suicide right there in the courtroom,

distraught over the possibility of perhaps having to leave. of course, we get threatening letters, threatening e-mails. these incidents are extremely disturbing. what is disturbing as well is the fact that these incidents are not tracked or reported to the immigration judges in any kind of coordinated fashion. the news is full lately with information and press releases about the fact that the department of homeland security will be ramping up enforcement and yet not only our immigration judge's part of this hidden judiciary as administrative judge is, we are often the forgotten piece of the immigration equation. we are the trial level courts that will be hearing these cases. and yet we don't have the resources allocated to us to handle those cases promptly and efficiently. so people come to court after

waiting maybe years to have their hearing heard and then feel sometimes that they are one of 50 cases, that they are rushed through, that they don't have time to really make their viewpoints known, which is understandably causing tempers to flare. we believe there needs to be a coordinated focus on security for the immigration courts. we believe that there needs to be additional funding allocated towards that. we believe that an overall restructuring of our courts would be appropriate. there is a large concern by ira association that the public does not perceive us as independent. because we are a component of the department of justice, many people believe that if we do not have the independence necessary to render fair decisions , that we fairtoo close the aligned to

the prosecutorial side of the government -- that we are too closely aligned. that is why we argue an article one court to be created and we'd be taken out of the department of justice. with regard to security, we have three recommendations. we recommend that data be assimilated and that a strategic plan be drafted. we believe that it is imperative immediately to augment personnel, have increased bailiffs' available so that you don't have someone speaking into the door every half-hour to make sure you are okay, which is what i have been san francisco. we believe long-term, physical accommodations should be made. we should be placed in federal buildings with the april bid construction to have the safety of the appropriate kinds of safeguards which now exist in other federal courtrooms are

reported to immigration judges. thank you for this opportunity. orla for taking your questions. -- i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you. i would like to ask the first question to judge friye. have any social security judges have had to apply for social security as a result of violence directed at judges? >> yes, i mentioned one judge who had to take disability retirement in 2008 after being hit over the head with a chair while she was in the courtroom. there are a couple of other judges, one of them was physically assaulted in the government facility in the hallway, was kicked and

repeatedly hit in various parts of the body and he had to take visibility -- disability retirement as well. those types of things should never happen in the courtroom, in a judicial operation. thank you. >> let's open it up to questions from the floor. mark? if you would not mind standing. >> [inaudible] a question for both of you. first for judge marks. you mentioned you are speaking in your capacity as a union officer. what have they done to address the issue with your boss? >> they have been extremely supportive of helping us with lobbying issues and guidance.

it is a great opportunity for us to be the younger sibling of the social security group because they are such a larger unit and we are. we benefit from the experience, having the opportunity to rely on them for their expertise and knowledge. we get lots of good ideas. judge brown has given me valuable information on helping us in terms of what contract provisions we should include in our next collective bargaining agreement, of what kinds of committees we can have and how our members can be active using the umbrella for labor organization to address these issues to the extent we have been put into employees. >> karen? >> coo's responsible for providing security at buildings that are not federal buildings?

is that tsa? second, how long a term to judges serve? >> federal protective service is responsible for the security in commercially-leased spaces through the general services administration, gsa. that is my ander standing. in terms of the term of office for an immigration judge, we are civil servants. therefore, we have the same merit systems protection board provisions as long as we don't engage in misconduct. we have our job waiting there for us for a federal service career. >> i cannot say my answer would be terribly different. there is a distinction in terms of tenure. as an administrative law judge,

we are appointed pursuant to the administrative procedure act. there's a little more independence from the agency, at least ostensibly than other kinds of objectives in the federal government. if that answers your question. >> is it two years? >> the tenure as a judge? the tenure as a judge is basically lifetime, absent some behavior that would bar of your removal. >> yes, please. >> [inaudible] you are administrative judges, but you are subject to review by federal courts. you are an important part of the judicial system. >> we like to think so. >> does that mean an important

part of the judicial system is being threatens? >> we are the trial level tribunal for immigration proceedings. we are the ones on the frontline to hear the witnesses and the stories people have to tell. any level above that is just on the record, that we have created. a paper record, not the emotional verbal presentation of the witnesses before us. so, yes, we feel neglected and misunderstood, because we that we are a component of the process that often is forgotten and yet is essential, because what we do every day in court sets the stage in that particular case. that is the record that someone will have to lockheed stay with

him throughout the entire proceeding as they progress all the way up to the united states supreme court. immigration cases eventually can be heard at united states supreme court. >> is there a threat to that part of the judiciary? >> absolutely. if you can imagine a judge receiving a threat before a hearing, that certainly would once ability toco emotionally deal with the prospect of a hearing. we are trial court as well. our process and procedure is very much the same as judge marks identified. particularly in circumstances where we do not have a bailiff in the hearing room with us. so it does impose a threat to justice. >> judge marks mentioned that there's going to be a change in

policy. how does the caseload work for you guys? >> i don't want to get into the political arena, but we have a tremendous backlog. the backlog was created because during the past administration for eight years the administration was underfunded. we could not hire or appoint judges. we could not hire staff. the backlog gradually built to a point where congress, with the president's support, increased our budget. we will, hopefully, by next year are complement will be well over 1400 judges. the past two years have been in the range of 1000 up to 1200. we have been making inroads to the tremendous backlog. our judges productivity is at the highest level in the history of the organization. >> judge marks mentioned that immigration judges are in a

traffic court setting handling serious cases. obviously, now with katrina, we see how there could be disability issues. is it to that crucial? are people's lives hanging on your decisions? >> there is no question that they are. i can give you many examples from my own experience where because of the backlog that build up, where you appear for a hearing and the claimants chair -- because death came before the hearing. one of the most important elements of our cases is providing medicare or medicaid. once you are found disabled, you get the benefits of health insurance. oftentimes, these types of an appearance they suffer can be treated.

so, yes, it is routinely a life and death scenario. >> if i may, my name is mark brown. i am an administrative judge with the the social security administration. some of the claimants that we represent our child cases. and so, you get parents coming in advocating for their children. as you know, there is no stronger emotional tie for lot of people than the parent trying to advocate on behalf of their minor. it's a very strong emotional component there. we also have other high-risk claimants that appeared before us. they can include ex-convict. there are many ex convicts who

apply as soon as they get out of the penitentiary. they see us as a form of potential free money. they figure they have nothing else to lose than to apply for benefits. of course, they have oftentimes exhibited some of the antisocial behavior that resulted in them getting incarcerated in the first place. we also have a lot of drug ,ddicts and alcoholics who because of their use of recreational drugs, don't have the same grass of societal norms as most regular people. we also have a category of claimants who are acute psychotic, literally. the judge never knows until the morning of the hearing when that person walks into the realm whether that person is still taking their anti-psychotic medications or not. one of the hallmarks of the acute psychotic is that they

will take the medication to the point where they get back more in touch with reality and then they say i am functioning fine and i don't need to take this stuff, and they stop taking it. another unfortunate category of claimants that appears before us are military veterans who are suffering from a version of posttraumatic stress disorder from their time in the military, unfortunately. they no longer want to deal with any form of governmental agency. oftentimes they have been trained in the use of weapons. that is the reality. lastly, we have people who are just hanging on by a string snd seee us as being

their last great hope for getting benefits for them and their families. if they cannot prove their need for disability and we have to deny them, they are devastated. that is one of the things that gents -- ends of generating a lot of death threats. >> since you are familiar with some of these incidents, would you mind describing some of the others? >> i have had a claimant who a threatens to claimant -- a claimant who threatened to bring an oozie to the hearing. and a person came to the u.s. capitol building and shot two capitol policeman and wounded a third one. that man sat before me for an hour in his own application. this was reported in the general

press than he was on social security benefits, which is the reason i'm able to mention it. i am fortunate that he was not homicidal when he was in front of me for that hour. there was a list of other examples that randy gave. i have a list of a lot more in my file about people who are doing things like not only threatening the judge, but they go on so extensively that they threaten the life of the president at the same time. there anger is that expansive. i am aware of at least two in the last four years that have threatened the life of the president elect obama at that time or even one before that who threatened president bush. so, i don't know if that answers

your question. >> that's good, but could you give us a sense of how many threats there have been over the last four years or so? >> first, judge martin alluded to this, under our contract with our agency, the agency every six months has to give to our union a list of all of the threats against judges that have occurred within the last six months. so within the last four years, based on the data we have received from them, there have been at least 200 such threats either to judges or more generic threats, i am going to come down there and blow up the office or i am going to come down there and start shooting. that threat is expensive enough that judges are if included in the potential list of targets. we have had people -- at least a couple said they would drive

their truck through the front window of the office. >> do we have other questions? >> [inaudible] what about talking to congress about increasing security cost? is there something you can do contractually with your agency that takes care of default security? >> i can say that we have any specific budget figures. with one exception. we made a presentation to the agency several years ago when we were trying to get walking magnetometers. at the time we had about 130 home offices. we also have permanent remote sites, which is a different animal. at the time, we had gotten an estimate from one of the

providers of these walking magnetometers that it would cost about $3,000 for each individual magnetometer for our offices. so that would've been -- i forget the exact match, but it would've been less than $500,000 for the agency, i believe, to provide those walking magnetometers for our offices. their problem was how they felt that if they provided them for us at the judicial level, they would also have to provide them for the roughly 1300 field offices where most people go just to get a social security number or to file their original claim. so that change the figure from five to hundred thousand to over 5 million, which was a different animal. i am aware of that expense. i also know that as a rough rule

of thumb, -- u. s. the question about the guards, the guards are provided through contract services. they get a guard company to provide the services in each individual city. the rough figure for each guards is roughly $50,000 a year. every time they added another guard, it would be roughly another annual cost of $50,000. >> the only thing i can add to that -- because i was not aware of those specific figures, thank you. we have 58 immigration courts around the country. i honestly don't know the breakdown of how many are housed in an immigration and customs enforcement detention facility. so that absorbs some of those costs. as i mentioned earlier, those are the most secure because

there are guards on site. >> any other questions? perhaps from someone we have not heard from? . >> the earlier question about what was being done to help you guys out? >> it has been one of the best associations we have ever formed. the professional organization provides all kinds of supports both on capitol hill, in the negotiation process, and in litigation process. they have vast experience in assisting and helping professional employees. i have never been disappointed in any assistance that they provided and they have never

refused to provide any assistance. they've been absolutely wonderful. >> [unintelligible] >> very successful. we are in the process of renegotiating our collective bargaining agreement. the initial agreement was so good that we extended it from -- the contract was negotiated in the year 2000. it was extended through 2010 because it was such a wonderful working agreement with very positive provisions. that agreement was actually negotiated by the general counsel. she sat at a table with us for months and help us carved out a very important document. and, of course, along the way they are available for guidance and assistance on any contract issue on a daily basis. so, their assistance has been absolutely invaluable.

>> if i could add to that response? one of my positions with our union is i am the co-chair of the health and safety labor- management committee. every month i go to washington, d.c. to meet with administration officials to talk with them about health and security issues. i have two other union judges with me and three management judges with me there also. i can say that over the passage of time we have slowly made a lot of progress. if i would compare the way we were in 2000 and 2001 with the way we are today, there has been improvement. now we have guards, for example. initially, we did not. the thing that precipitated it was a claimant who got a denial decision, went to the office wanting to talk to the judge denied its case. the judge was not physically

going to be there. he would not have been allowed to talk to the judge in any event because it would have been off the record conversation. we don't allow judges to have off the record conversations because they can claim that if the judge called them an idiot or said i never grant benefits to women or grant benefits to a hispanic or black people or any category you want. so we never let them have and off the record conversation. in any event, the judge telling the court to let them come out in the reception area to speak with me. so they got her supervisor to tell the person it's not going to happen, but you're going to have to leave or we will call the police. at that point he pulled a revolver out of his pocket and shot himself in the head. if their revolvers had one more bullet in it. if the logical inference, one was for the judge and one was for himself. it was after that, that we got

the guards, at least. for years the agency would not allow the guards to have the tools to do their job. they would not give them a wand to find out if a person was bringing a firearm or a nice -- knife. finally we had enough dialogue with the agency that they allowed the guards to have a wind. that happened in 2005. -- to have a wand. but they refused to let them have magnetometers because of the cost issues i spoke about with the field offices. we finally got the agency to ban people bringing pepper spray and mace. it was only to the union that we are able to get that through. we finally got the agency to insist that the guards would do 100% packet inspections of all

briefcases, purses, backpacks that anyone brought. before that it was random. i thought that was christie's security. we finally accomplished that. -- it used to be swiss cheese security. the agency is getting security higher and higher on its and radar screen and acknowledge them for that but we have a long way to go. >> anderson, a member of the press club, a former writer for the herald. is there another administrative law judge association, a federal administrative law judge conference that is not a union, are they on board with you on the issue of security? >> there are two other administrative law judge organizations. we do work very closely with those organizations. this event it came up rather

quickly. we did not have the opportunity to invite them to participate. in the future i hope they will be part of the process. i know in dealing with them that they have the same kinds of security concerns that we have. we also have had traditionally the support of the american bar association as well as the federal bar association. what we have in place and have had a number of years is a coordinated committee of the aalj group. we tried to meet every year from representatives from organizations and with reps from the aba, fba, and at times the ifpte will assist us on issues. we meet regularly to discuss all kinds of issues.

yes, we work in unison. >> you mentioned -- one of your suggestions was to take the immigration judges out of the department of justice. it is my ander standing that most of the other hit agencies that are article one judges do remain in the agencies. they are independent, they provide hearings, meaning they are not located in the parent agency. >> that is why immigration judges are different. most administrative law is complicated and a little archaic. most administrative law judges make a recommendation to their agency head. immigration judges are different, because the decisions that the issue are final

decisions if they are not appealed. 90% of the decisions that immigration judges make are not appealed. >> [inaudible] >> they are appeal directly to the board of immigration appeals, which is another administrative tribunal. we are advocating that both the immigration courts and the trial level board of immigration appeals be moved into an article one tribunal so that we would be like the tax court. part of it is because of the confusion that the public has. i cannot tell you how many times imf judge. me saan i have never worked for the immigration and naturalization service. that was a large agency under the supervision of the attorney general in the department of justice long ago and then you had a very small agency. we used to joke that we were the

cinderella because we were so small and mistreated. when there was reorganization into the department of homeland security in 2001 is when it took effect in 2002, we wanted separation from the immigration enforcement agencies. we thought the most effective way to do that was by remaining in the department of justice of the department of homeland security was created. i would be happy to give you more materials. we feel combat, that temporary solution has not gone far enough because of events that have transpired since that time. >> we have time for one last question. are there any? >> very quickly. one of the problems with our agency is it makes no concerted

effort to track the number of weapons that are stopped from coming into our facilities. right now the agency policy is that if one of you were to come to my hearing and the guard stops you and finds you have a firearm on new and said you cannot come in with this, the agency policy is that person then take a fire arm back to their vehicle and leaves it in the car and comes back and then they can come in or they can give it to a relative or friend and the relative test leaves. but the agency refuses to make any concerted effort to collect data on how often that happens. that does not make any sense to me. the same thing happens with knives. if a person is stopped, they don't make any record of the fact that the person was stopped from bringing the weapon. what you have to understand is there are only two states and the district of columbia that

don't have some form of carrying a concealed weapon permits. many people think if they have a state permit they can carry a gun. as soon as they come on federal realize, they don't that no longer applies. >> thank you all. there were questions about iftc. one place we're it is helping the judges is that the press release for today's event will be posted on ifpte.org website. thanks for you coming and thanks to all those watching us on c- span. we stand adjourned. >> i have cards if you looked like to discuss issues related to our proceedings. help yourselves. >> me too. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008]

judicials more programming coming up on c-span and the couple moments. justice ruth bader ginsberg in her recent speech before the 10th circuit court of appeals. a little later, president obama's first appointment to the bench, sonia sotomayor my your. president obama will get an update on the economy this morning. afterwards he is expected to make a statement to the press. we plan to have that live from the white house rose garden this morning. it starts at 12:30 eastern this afternoon on c-span. white house spokesman robert gibbs will brief reporters later today. we will have that live at 1:30 eastern. join us tonight when we have last weekend's rallies from washington starting at 8:00. glenn beck and sarah palin and they're off "restoring honor" rally from the lincoln memorial.

after that, al sharpton leads a rally entitled "reclaim the dream." watched both of them if on c- span at 8:00 eastern. >> yesterday i signed a declaration for the state of louisiana, a disaster declaration. this morning i signed a disaster declaration for the state of mississippi. >> as the gulf coast marks the fifth anniversary of hurricane katrina, look back at how the federal government responded to the crisis online. every program since 1987 garrett is washington, your way. supreme court justice ruth bader ginsberg friday at the 10th circuit judicial conference in camerado springs, colorado. she read a speech at was originally supposed to be delivered by her husband who passed away in june from cancer. if a little later in the event she is joined by the chief justice of this canadian supreme court to discuss differences between the canadian u.s. high

court's including the role of television in covering the proceedings. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> i want to advise you, if you have a mobile device, it could interrupt and it would not be pretty. [laughter] if you turn off all mobile devices that might interrupt, that would be good. it is a delight to welcome all of you. a special honor to have our once circuit justice ruth vader ginsberg back with us tonight. you know much of her career. i will brief you that she graduated first in her class from cornell president of harvard law school before transferring to columbia to be with her husband marty, who acquired a job at a new york law firm. she became the first woman to

run the law review. she granted at the top of her class after year oat columbia. she worked as a research associate. she worked for several feminist causes. she had some interesting matters in the 10th circuit. she battled maternity leave rights for school teachers. 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 thajustice 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 santae 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 tyou 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. fascinatinas 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 isn exceedingly funny subject. [laughter] in the 1960's, i practiced l 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 mighte presented by statutes that differentiated on the basis of sex. a dismal academic undertaking because back then t 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. ifhe taxpayer were raising the constitutional objective, forget about it. everyone knows that the tax code is immune from cotitutional attack. [laughter] let me digress for a moment to tell you that in the tax court, although not a lawr, 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 t 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 thafive minutes later, it was a short opinion, ruth stepped into my little room and with t 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 persuad. 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 urt. 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 compute 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 workoom 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 visionf 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 hay about that. -- going in here, but the marshals were not happy about that. we will gain insight about their lives and their contributns 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 alrdy 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 stice ginsburg and a black to introduce our other two panelists. justice beverly mclaughlin is thfirst female chief justi of the supreme crt of canada and was the first one appointed to that court. she received her b.a. and m.a.

deee. she won the gold medal for being the top student there and was editorn chief of the alberta law review. she is the cirperson 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 judiary. she concluded with four myths that she thought should be abandoned 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. pplause] >> 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 kin 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 rd'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 yearetween the argument and the decision. by that time, sally reed's case s 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 woerfully welming atmosphere, but the numbers made

you paranoid. i know 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 erybody is watching you and seeing what kind of a person you are. i went to edmonton for my mang baband 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 tl 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 haveeen, 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 n open or transparent. under response to that political pressure, wd marshall rothstein was nominated, he said that the 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 somedvantages 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 a 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 n 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 we talking through me to their constituents to show how up-to-date, how intelligent the senator was. i think television is responsible for the lenh of our hearings.

the cordiality -- steve briar and were the beneficiaries of a much difre 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 boosr 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 leg officer to the chief justice would be the equivalent to chief justice council in united states. it is a liaison for the press. when 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 -- when the judgment is released

they are ready to go on-line, television, radio or what ever. quickly. with the media, time matters and they are concerned about getting these things out quickly. 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 dia officer goeover 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. d they get the plaintiff and defendant mid 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 not going to be an attempt to get a scoop by using a blackberry?

>> we deprive them of all electronic apparatus. we were just down for a wonderful meeting with members of the united states supreme court this spring and i must say that thehief justice was most impressed and said that they actually locked up the press. >> when you said, justice ginsburg, that television is more responsible as one of the key factors responsible for the lengthening and perhaps a lot of posturing in our confirmation process. if you think that is what happened to congress, then i take it that you would think

that supreme court justices are not the same kd of people. those that are hoping for cameras in the supreme court to stop open because the same thing uld happen. . . >> he was the only one that had any experience with cameras in the courtroom. he was on the new hampshire supreme court for some years, and they did televise proceedings. lawyers were acting out for the camera. being more dramatic than they would be without the cameras.

worse, clique he felt inhibited. he was answering his own because an inquiry that might be well understood between lawyers might not will be so understood by the public. that was his view. and when you were sitting on the collegial bench, is there is anyone of you who would be extremely discomfort heard by the notion of having cameras in the courtroom, you would defer to that college. >> i guess i should say for the information of audience, i think the chief justice told a bunch of us this year that he did not banthink that this was assuto