tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 25, 2010 1:00pm-3:53pm EST
1:00 pm
home back home. thank you very much. we will get on with the questions. [applause] >> teague justice, a number of students have asked questions about -- chief justice, a number of students have asked questions about how the court functions. it chief justice has had his own way of managing in the court. have you looked to your predecessors for inspiration of style? . .
1:01 pm
>> it is hard to know. you do not gel+ñ a guidebook whn youlc come in this thing here is what the chief justice should do. i try to talk to my colleagues and find out if there is anything they do not like about how i am administering the conference. my job to initiate the discussions of conference, we meet a couple of days after a case is argued in the conference room, a beautiful conference room. it is right off of my office. there are four portraits on the road, one of them is robert jackson.
1:02 pm
i lead the discussion in the sense that i ticket often tell them what i think the case is about and how it should be resolved. then we go around the table in order of seniority. nobody speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. that lets everyone get a chance to participate. then we have all little back and forth until reached the point where we have a tentative decision and move on to the next case. sometimes the discussion goes on for a long time, in many cases it could be quite short. everyone focuses on the decisions. he and they can move pretty quickly. -- they can move pretty quickly. others can take even longer, and even go into extra days. i am sure i will change. i am sure i will have a better sense in five years or 10 years and about how us to facilitate that conversation, but i have not heard a lot of complaints to
1:03 pm
get from my colleagues. they would not be shy about it if they had complaints. [laughter] >> when you get to the end of the discussion process and it is time for you to write an opinion, steve trader notes that in the recent c-span interview you spoke about the importance about writing an opinion. he asked when you write an opinion do you write for more academic audience or doesn't depend on the perception of the case? >> i think a different-as -- every different justice would give a different degree to that. i want people who are not necessarily lawyers to be able to pick up an opinion and read it, understand what the case is about, understand what we decided and why. it is an important part of the
1:04 pm
way our democracy functions. the president does not have to explain to you why he is taking a particular action, congress does not have to explain why it is voting for all law, what their reasons are. they both usually do, but they do not have to. you did not get to let us, and if you do not like what we're doing, too bad, you didn't get to fire us, so we have to explain what we're doing. we have to justify it. you can love at it and see and decide for yourself, yes, this makes sense. the justices are acting like justices or i disagree with this but i understand what they are saying. -- you can look at it enzi and decide for yourself if this makes sense. audiences i like are intelligent
1:05 pm
laypeople like my sisters, none of them are lawyers, but they are intelligent people and up with current affairs. i always like to find out if that is something they can read, if not i go back and try again. but that is for most cases. there will be some very technical cases. unintelligent layperson would not read it. -- an intelligent laypersioson would not read it. [laughter] >> a graduate of the college and now a law student at george washington for hundred the question that begins by saying that our recent keyspan poll found that only 33% of expand its could identify any supreme court decision, and at that 33%,
1:06 pm
75% named the roby wave. charles qassam do you think the popular should know about the court and its major decisions and if so, what you think might improve the public knowledge? -- charles asks do you think the popular should know about the court and its major decisions and if so, what you think might improve the public knowledge? >> i do not know who they are asking, but most would know about brown vs. the board of education that changed our way of life in america. they need to know the good decisions and the bad decisions. to some extent, that is the justices faults. i cannot say i achieve my goal of writing an opinion for an intelligent layperson in every case. i certainly go back and read
1:07 pm
some that did not fit that description. when you go back in history and read the important cases, it is very easy. there was a time of law where people started writing legalese and it is very difficult to follow, but the most important case in our history, mark reverses madison it is very important. anybody can read it. -- marbury vs. madison. >> from a somewhat different standpoint, a student asked about your style in performing your duties and whether it was influenced by where you grew up. she notes that justice thomas in the c-span interview said that because of the southern background, he found it rude to be frequently interrupted and attorneys' argument.
1:08 pm
she asked whether you think your upbringing in indiana has includes any aspect of your work on the court. >> i do. i wil include western new york in my definition of a midwestern if i can push it a little bit. i think there are different styles. as opposed justice thomas thinks i am being rude and interrupt counsel, but i do and some of my colleagues do as well. it is not in any rude way. we have an important job to do, and that is to get information from the lawyers. they have a short amount of time. each side has only a half hour to argue. >> when i was an advocate, you would get interrupted after the first minute, and i am sure we do that as well. if you not -- if you have not been to the supreme court, i encourage you to go.
1:09 pm
and a half hour i get more than 60 questions. they do come on very fast like that. you have to be nimble on your feet. we have justices from all different backgrounds. we have two from trenton, new jersey, so i do not know what that style is. will the and all from new york. justice kennedy sent the west coast. -- we have several from new york. i like to think there is a particular midwestern style that is comfortable for most people, and it is the way i still comfortable interacting even with lawyers on the bench, but i am sure depending on the question, lawyers may not find it so pleasant. >> as a related question by one of our students asking whether your experience in going to a catholic high school had an effect on your development as a lawyer or thinker?
1:10 pm
>> it was a guy's name. and it [laughter] i was very fortunate. and i had a great experience in high school. it was a very small school. 100 students for four grades. you cannot hide. you got a lot of intense education. you had the chance to do things you and i have a chance to do anywhere else. i played on the block alfootbal. i am sure that was an important factor in shaping my views on certain things. >> there is a question that relates back to the public's understanding of the court's work. it comes from michael smith who notes that during her nomination hearings, justice kagen, the support of broadcasting or arguments before the court.
1:11 pm
mr. smith asked if you think that is a good idea or what did seould it politicize the court? to go it is a tough question and one that we get a lot. -- >> it is a tough question, and one that we get a lot. one of the innovations i mentioned, making the tapes of the arguments available. before this term you waited a year before it was over. now you wait as quickly as three days. three to five days. that is a big step. we're trustees of an extremely valuable institution that has evolved over more than two centuries. all of us want to be very careful. we do not want to do something that we think might injure the institution. broadcasting is something that does come up. it is something we consider from
1:12 pm
time to time. i do not know which direction the court will go. there are arguments on both sides. i certainly appreciate the argument that it would give people a chance to see what we do. i think that would be a good thing for people to see what we do, but there's also concern it might affect what we do. whether it is or lawyers are going to be more interested in in showboating, whether it is justices who'v change the way ty approach the case. there is a sure dynamic. i do not want to think twice before asking a question thinking how will that sound? i just want to get the question out, and if it does not sound right, keep moving on. it is an issue that obviously we have not come to rest on. certainly it is something that is brought up frequently, and i
1:13 pm
think you need to keep in mind that the court moves very slowly on things like that. tico's several students ask the question -- >> several students ask the question about asking whether it is difficult for you to keep your moral convictions from infringing upon your application of a wall. or can you compartmentalize your beliefs as to what the law should be promoted is? >> yes. it is actually pretty easy. the conference room where we decide oliver cases since 1935 is right off of my office, and on one side of the room they o have copies of every decision the united states court has issued. on the other side they have
1:14 pm
every law that congress has ever passed. we do not have books of moral philosophy. we do not have religious texts. nothing like that as in the conference room. those are not the materials we look at. we look at the cases and lost. separating personal views of what things should be, personal moral views from what they are is something the lawyers do all the time. it is not just judges. criminal lawyers representing criminal defendants, they often know they are guilty. you separate your view of what the client did, even what type of person he or she might be from your obligation to defend them at all. it is keeping your personal moral views separate from your legal job and obligations is something that happens all the time. in many cases i think it is a
1:15 pm
horrible thing that people burn the american flag. it represents at this very moment when our troops are under fire and they have people doing that, it is repulsive. but i understand and politics of the court's decision that is protected under the first amendment as expressive conduct. you can put aside, no matter how strongly argues are felt, from obligation to interpret it and apply it to wall. -- apply it to law. >> two seniors ask questions about whether of justice should have an interpretive philosophy to guide the justice in deciding constitutional questions. she notes that scalia is said to be at text decider and others tend to be natural law.
1:16 pm
the students asked have these labels have affected your career as a judge and whether the supreme court can overcome the tendency to attach the labels to the court order judges when their decisions are announced? >> i do not have an over as -- overarching interpretive philosophy that in every case this is our am going to analyze it. some of the adjectives do not make any sense. i have never understood living constitution. they must be demean the constitution. [laughter] the question is how do you interpret the powerful words on paper? i am certainly focused on the
1:17 pm
text, as a lot of us do. as a lot of the cases we have already heard argued in this term show, it is not a lease easy to figure out what the words mean. cases always come up that do not seem to fit in the categories that congress enacted into law, but i do not have an over- arching philosophy. i do not think we are given free rein to modify or adapt or alter what the constitution means because of our proceed in view of what is necessary. and our job is to give the baseball course to the enactment of the founding fathers. in the case of statutes, it is to get a full interpretation of the words that congress adopted. some judges are more sweeping and what they will look to to try to get that meaning. others think that the words
1:18 pm
carry so much more weight than the extremists of interpretations like what congress said during the debates or the hearings that they tend not to focus on those. my mind is not close to looking at the other sources, but i tend to be more skeptical of how meaningful they can be and do try to focus more on the language. >> i think you may have just answered the question i was going to ask. judge britney asked whether it would be -- judge screntni asked whether the recent court should try to ascertain the purpose of congress in enacting a statute and try to achieve that purpose, even though the language that congress adopted might not be artful. i hope i fairly summarized his
1:19 pm
position and he was barely interested in your observation on that. >> adjusted -- justice breyer has given me a copy of his book and i will read it as soon as i can. it is a very good and thoughtful work. i do encourage you all to buy it. when you are in the bookstore buying joe's book. it is a very thoughtful treatment of an issue that comes up in case after case. you know what congress wanted to do, and the question is do you do what theyyou know they wanteo do or are you stuck with the word? i tend to focus more on the words, because i am not so sure i can always get it right in trying to decide that this is what congress wanted to do. even when congress wants to do something, they do not want to do it without regard to everything else. there are limits.
1:20 pm
it is not one purpose that wipes through all the other limitations. it poses a heavier burden on congress. the idea is not to show what you're trying to get at and we will cover the rest. they have to spell out legislative language that allows them to accomplish what they want to do. that is their job, and not ours. >> and number of our students, and you will not be surprised, are thinking about preparing for a law school and what lies beyond them. shane nelson and adam bobeck asked what advice she might give to students considering law school in terms of how your own experice helps prepare you tyrian rejiggering their undergraduate years. >> i would echo what the professor said about setting up the center.
1:21 pm
his focus was insuring do have a liberal arts education. i would avoid any kind of technical pre-law course before you get to law school. robert jackson, i keep coming back to him, and must be in the air of a neighbor and here. he has a wonderful passage where he talks about what you need to be a good lawyer where he talked about you need to understand art, have a good sense of poetry, have a very good sense of the history of the republic, not only the republic but history of ideas. all of that is true. a good liberal arts education is far more informed than any focused pre-law course. the constitutional law class as i sat in on today were wonderful, but i do not regard that as a pre-fall courslaw cou.
1:22 pm
from my own experience, there is extremely successful lawyers who were classics majors in college, science majors. there is no hopper preordained course to get to ospel. -- i would say there is no preordained course to get to law school. >> you characterize the senate's confirmation process for federal judges as being broken down. another one of our students suggested that senator lindsay gramm had proposed that confirmation hearings release should focus solely on whether the nominee is qualified and whether they have the requisite character. both the students would appreciate hearing your views on the confirmation process. >> at the end of the day, it worked out all right.
1:23 pm
and [laughter] >it is not terribly useful to be honest. if you have seen them, you understand why. the senators have a moment when they want to focus on issues that are of concern to them, and they usually do that by getting the nominee to convoke -- to vote in one way or another in one particular area. menominees from both presidents from both parties have resisted the notion. -- nominees from both presidents from both parties have raised the notion. and it the judge's explaining they cannot answer those questions and then repeat for each senator. i do not think they are particularly fruitful.
1:24 pm
i think they could be made more useful and questions could be more shaped in a way that gets a valuable information but then the senators time when not be as interesting to their constituents. the hearings themselves as a very unsavory history. the first time there were hearings was when louis brandeis who was nominated in the early times. it was motivated by anti- semitism. the next came during brown vs. the board of education when segregation senators wanted to make sure the nominees were not going to follow brown vs. board of education faithfully. hearings are a very recent phenomenon. they do not have a great lineage. i am not sure they serve a useful purpose the way they are structured now. >> a young this -- alumnus and
1:25 pm
attorney dan more acid batteries and article regarding the growth of supreme court clinics at law schools. but article of that offer noted that thus far in the clinics have disproportionate success in petitioning the court to review a case and in presenting cases to the court. in the past to what do you attribute the clinics' success a disregard -- he asks to what do you attribute the clinics' success and this regard? to cotilliard take increases -- >> they are taking cases that had not been well presented and the past and bring in expertise about the substantive law and supreme court practice of error in presenting the case in a much more effective way and had often been the case in the past. the one thing i have learned about being a judge is wrely
1:26 pm
so heavily on the lawyers. we will hear at 12 -- 12 cases in a particular session. each lawyer is maybe the only case they will argue in front of the supreme court. they know so much more about the case then we will. that is why we spent a whole time asking questions. the better the lawyers are, the better we feel we can do our job. these clinics that all schools, professors are teaching a course in preparing the breeze as part of that, certainly they do a very good job. i would like to see some of the criminal lawyers be able to spend more time on their clients' cases of the supreme court level to do as good of a job, because i think that would give us a better taste for how the bar is practicing, and maybe
1:27 pm
in some cases a better sense of what is going on in a particular case to have a lawyer that has been with it for a long time. it is very hard to be able to put aside this time to work on the supreme court petition or supreme court case. it would be nice to have more of a mix of the representation. i appreciate the challenges on both sides. >> peter galley notes that the court decided the brown, vs. board of education case was adorned with two former attorney general, to form where solicitor general and the former sec chairman. i did not check that out. i will take him at his word on that. and he says by contrast of the past 20 years, presidents have chosen almost exclusively, and that an exclusively to nominate
1:28 pm
judges to the court. do you think such an exclusive judges on appellate court judges is halted for the court? -- is healthy for the court? >> it has been an extreme change. partly the nature of the court's work has changed. it is much more, much more narrowly focused than it was 50 years ago. it is more judges work done away the court looked at its obligation. the political figure of hugo black, fred vincent would look at a lot of what we do and their eyes would glaze over.
1:29 pm
and it is not the political world that are used to. it is a more dramatic move to move to that political life from our job. every year there are four or five cases on the docket that everybody will know about and everyone will be interested in and it will be controversial, but the other 85 or 90, i love them and they are fascinating lawyers like you would love them, but they will not attract the attention of people who are shaping public policy and those sorts of things. the nature of the work may have changed, and once the appreciation is out there -- i think it might be a good thing but you have a court doing more lawyer worked rather than grand policy. that may or may not account for the change. >> one of our students ask the question that ties into this in a way, because it means kagen
1:30 pm
would be an example of someone that did not come from the court of appeals. one of the students asked have you or the other justices taken any particular steps to introduce her to the court or how -- or helper transition to being a justice? >> when i came on board, the other eight justices all came by and told me how things worked at the court, and there were eight very different views of how things went. [laughter] justice kagen is one that the best legal jobs in government, the solicitor general. it is not terribly different from what appellate judges do represent the government before the united states. you are dealing with the same sort of materials and sort of the president's and putting them together. i do not think it is that much
1:31 pm
of a change from the way the system has gone. the one thing i would say if she does not need any training time. she has certainly hit the ground running and is certainly contributing in a very positive way to our deliberations. as i said, we are all very delighted to have her on board. >> there was a 2007 article in which foster took the position that the court was sympathetic to corporate interests. it says that some of the reaction to the citizens united case about the political contributions reinvigorated that criticism cure yet however, she says justice breyer's appearing on bloomberg television earlier this month insisted there is no such business bias by the courts. do you think that that pro- business term is a fair
1:32 pm
characterization of the court? >> no, i don't. if you look at the cases that the writer was referring to and some of the others, many of them are unanimous. it is shared broadly across the different provincial and political perspectives of the court. i do not think it is a valid criticism at all. it is one of the things that is frustrating about the coverage of our work. it is very hard. i sit down with the supreme court press corps at least once a year which is a very talented group of individuals. it is very hard for an individual to cover the court. it is hard to write a story if you come out with the decision and interpreting of particular
1:33 pm
statutory division in the clean water act, a particular section that does this end this and this. we get to a 5-4 decision. it is so much easier for our reporter to say they ruled in favor of the company. this is the political makeup of the justices of how they stood uplit up. when you get to the end of the story, and no point have been quoted the sentence that they turned on. you do not get to said they're trying to figure out what the sentence means. i understand why they decided it. it is hard work to do that. you get a lot of reporting that says this was a pro-business decision. this was a pro-environment decision. that type of categorization does not make a lot of sense. >> charles becerra noticees that
1:34 pm
when you were confirmed to talk about achieving more consensus. how did go about achieving this purpose, and in light of order despite some of the decisions over the past couple of years, citizens united and others, do you believe you have achieved this objective or what it efforts can you reasonably undertaken to achieve that objective? >> i do not think i was under any illusions when we said that. one of my colleagues, when they heard that i had an idea to bring about a broader consensus on the court, he said good luck with that. i do think it is a good thing. i do think it is important.
1:35 pm
i think that you as consumers of locked justifiably have a lot more confidence in a nine- nothing decision then and at 5-4 decision. that is only natural. however i tried to go about doing it? i tried to discuss things a little bit longer in the conference room if i think there is a possibility that we might come to the broader area of agreement. i tried to assign opinions and the way that i think oscar may be able to bring more people on board then if i assigned it to another justice. i think it is an objective for pursuing and in some years it has worked out better. it has gone up and down. it is something that i think is worth pursuing and i will continue to do it. i do not expect everyone to be singing and walking off into the distance any time soon. [applause] we all wish you good luck on that. we do. the attorney michael smith
1:36 pm
notices you have spoken in previous interviews about clarity in legal riding bulls for lawyers and judges. are there any writers outside of the legal spear whose work you admire? >> yes, and it goes somethibacko something i have talked about before, and that is clarity is very important. robert jackson is a perfect example. you knew exactly what he was saying and why, and it was still moving to read it. i like my predecessors opinions. cheaper justice rehnquist. they are very crisp and clear. -- chief justice rehnquist. he has a book that i had the recommend to any person who is going into law school about how the supreme court works. it is very clear and a good read. you can pick it up when you are
1:37 pm
reading cheap crier anief just's and joe's book. if you read a lot, you did a good sense of what is good writing. it helps you when you're writing briefs or opinions, it does not matter. you mentioned chief justice rehnquist and that reminds me that whenever students had asked me if you would say a little bit about what your work was like when you were the law clerk to the associate justice? >> it was a fabulous year. you sat right there and they call them opel clerks. -- elbow clerks. he was famous for at 10-day rule. if you get a signed a memo or draft opinion, what ever it is,
1:38 pm
you have 10 days to do with whether it is a little case you can do in a day or little -- or if the case, you have 10 days to do it. that meant you did not have a lot of flourishes, you're stuck to the basics and got things explained as clearly as you could. i remember saying if you gave me a month, i would do a much better job than i will do and 10 days. the first thing he said is i do not think that is true, and the second thing is the idea is not for you to do as good a job as you can, it is for me to do as good a job as i can. it is better that i get something back quickly that i can work with that is not densely packed with your idea of what is good writing. she was a wonderful man. logically it was not just the writing. -- he was a wonderful man. you ask them for the best arguments and go back and forth. to see is analytic process, the
1:39 pm
steps of logic, was very educational for me. you develop a close bond with your law clerks. people think we spend a lot of time walking down the halls with the justices, we really do not. the common law tradition is we do not talk to each other about the case until we go on the bench. the first time i am learning a lot is at the oral argument. to get ready for that only people you can talk to are the law clerks. you spend a lot of time with them and try to get as much out of them as you can. it is an intense, hard years for them. it is a wonderful way to get introduced to the law. i was very fortunate to have that experience. >> a professor asked when you were having that experience, did you imagine that you someday might be on the court or begich of -- chief justice?
1:40 pm
>> no. [laughter] it is a very odd twist of fate. when i was clerking, she wrote an article about the powers and authorities of the chief justice. he had no idea he was going to be the chief justice. i certainly had no idea i was going to be chief justice, and we were there in 1980 writing the article about it. it is odd to reflect back on it. >> interesting. a student here at the college asked about how you go about determining who will serve as your locklear. she said what qualities are you looking for in a prospective clerk in terms of educational background, prior experience, and the views on legal or political issues? >> obviously you look for someone who is extremely well qualified. i have people i know who are
1:41 pm
judges and all work for another federal court judge before. and they will tell me i have someone that is good that you should look at. i like a breath of knowledge. i will not be terribly interested in someone who is wanted to be a lawyer since they work for years old and do nothing but take law courses. i interviewed after weeding down a good group of them. one thing i like to be sure of is that those people have enough self-confidence to be useful in the process. if i want to argue back and forth with them to see if an idea makes sense, they have to be able to push back and not just wilt. it is not easy because these are young people right out of law school. i try to find ways to see if they have that kind of confidence. one year i was on the court of appeals doing this in the way the system worked then, you are interviewing everyone you might
1:42 pm
be interested in the same day. i have 10 interviews set up or 12. krofft of ok'd crispy cream donut its -- i brought a dozen of krispy kreme doughnuts. i told my secretary that anyone who gets a donor gets a job. that summit that had enough confidence that they did not care is the worst -- are had parted sugar on them. not a single donor was left at the end of the day. -- doughnut was left at the end of the day. i need to find someone who is capable of doing that. >> i do not know if this question goes out of the crispy cream donut question, but there
1:43 pm
is a question why you dispensed with the gold bars on your wrote? >>-- on your robe? >> jeep justice rehnquist put three gold bars on his lead. he had seen and gilbert and sullivan production and that is what the lord chancellor was wearing and thought it looked good. i tught i should wait awhile, until i earned my stripes. [laughter] >> there is a question from a criminal justice professor. she would like to north your view of which view the behavioral sciences should have in your decisions? she points out the majority opinion relied on research and sociology and psychology to assess the lesser blamed
1:44 pm
worthiness of juvenile offenders when compared to adult offenders. should such research play an important role in the court's decision? >> it makes sense that it plays a role. you're trying to determine whether it is life without parole is a suitable sentence for someone below a certain age and so you consider whether someone at a down age is less blameworthy or less than somebody above all what ever the minimum cut off is. to the extent psychological evidence is suitable or physiological -- all of it. you can put anything you want before the court and to the extent it is persuasive, it will have an impact on how the court looks at its. the problem is we do not know anything about it. you tell me the way the mind works that somebody until they are aged 16 cannot formulate the same sort of refined moral sentences of someone that 28 can
1:45 pm
anyone to know if they can formulate an of moral sense to appreciate this terribly horrific crime that they committed was wrong. i would have had to study the whole field of human knowledge to make that judgment. it goes back to what i said earlier, the lawyers have to do a good job of explaining it to us. they have to take the complicated scientific concepts that we're not good with and put it in a framework that we can understand. i think any type of evidence is valuable that lawyers can put before us. we will disregard some of we do not think they have explained in a way that persuades us it is worth looking at. it is not just in those areas. we get technical cases. i am completely at sea when it gets to the arguments about how the electronic pulses move and what the different chips do, and yet you have to decide the legal issues that affect that.
1:46 pm
i rely heavily on the lawyers to explain not only bill ball, but also the technology in a way that i can understand. >> chief justice, thank you. i know of our students and faculty and alumni are very grateful for your answers. the chief justice has kindly agreed to take a few questions from our audience here tonight. i think there are going to be a microphone brought up the center aisle. if you would like to ask a question, go to the microphone. the purpose is everyone is here to hear what the chief justice banks. please try to ask a question, and not make a great temptation to make a statement. we would appreciate if you would have a question, put it in that region put in question form. -- put in question form.
1:47 pm
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this is the technology are was talking about. and [laughter] -- this is the technology i was talking about. n.ymaybe if you want to speak loudly and then i will repeat the question. that sounds better. >> [inaudible]
1:48 pm
there was a presentation by judge sotomayor york and she spoke very passionately about the personal affect on her of anonymity and the ability when she was appointed to go through the confirmation of her ability to walk through the streets to go get a big hole where she wanted to get. she goes to a dance with someone and someone takes a photograph of her on the cell phones and wind up in the newspaper. i was wondering if he could talk about the effect on your personal life on the visibility of your position now? >> first of all, it is not as bad as you might think. most polls when people ask to was on the supreme court, judge judy is always names. [laughter] a couple of the others. it is not like you are getting
1:49 pm
mobbed by well-wishers or opponents. you do get a sense that sometimes people are either happy to see you are not happy to see you, and you just have to get used to it and do not let it affect how you go about your life. you get used to it i guess is the best way to put it. >> and this is actually following up on your comments about not having expertise in everything that comes up. do you have people on your staff that either have the expertise you can consult with is something is controversial? did you have people you can go to ne to get all sides of argums of that you can get a better legal conclusions from it? >> the answer is pretty much no, and that is a good thing.
1:50 pm
the people that are supposed to do that for us are the lawyers. that is the way the system works. i think it would be a bad thing for us to say i really need to know what the right answer is so i will ask so and so, so then they are really acting as the judge to the sense that the science is in with the law. i do not want someone to tell us what it is in the way that is supposed to be my job. it makes the lawyer's job harder. they cite and detach all of the scientific literature who, not just their work for it. they have to be able to present its in a language i can understand it analyzes and that language and present it to you in language you can understand without the technical backgrounds. it needs to be brought to bear on these great technical issues.
1:51 pm
there is a little narrow perspective here. i am sure the steam engine was something that was very difficult for judges to understand when it first came on the scene and the need of lawyers to explain it to them. and i do not like the idea that we web experts independent of an adversary process. >> thank you. >> i am a buffalo public schoolteacher and a regional representative for parental rights. i was wondering what your take is on the pursuit of a mammoth in the constitution. they are pursuing an amendment to the constitution regarding parental rights. there's great concern these days. 1973 in roe v wade is probably the worst legislation and our country that many conservatives are concerned about. at this college in time the united nations is seeking rights for children and try to make it
1:52 pm
a global affair. i was wondering if you could tie that to the other. what are your thoughts in regards to roby wae vs. wade as opposed to how t things are going? >> i do not think you will still be surprised there will not comment. if you want an amendment, go to it and i will be happy to interpret whatever you come up with. [applause] i think you will appreciate i connected to the other stuff as well. thank you. >> you are probably aware that you are in competition. i am certainly happy i came to this. thank you. my question might be a broad one, but what do you think is
1:53 pm
the greatest challenge to the american democracy? >> well, i guess i have not given it a lot of thoughts. i have enough challenges and then there were a bit of it, but i would say in terms of 30% of the people can name a supreme court case. i still cannot believe that is true. it is, i think it is a big challenge to make sure people get more involved in their government. i was visiting an australian not too long ago, and they have all their that you have to vote. if you do not, you get a ticket. you look at the persists bridgette participation rate we have, just think of how many people, beginning with the founding generation gave their lives so that you and i would
1:54 pm
have the right to vote for our leaders. it is really quite sad. the idea that people do not know much about what the judicial branch does and the role they play i think is very sad. i think that is a big challenge. you will not be able to keep a democracy if you do not participate in it. it seems to me that you where people artisan paving in its. -- that fewer for people are participating in it. >> thank you for being here brought the conversation tonight. my name is drawn prior. i am a 1992 college graduate. -- i am john pryor. many of us are old enough to remember people such as clarence thomas, robert bork's whose name
1:55 pm
may have become aver verb, but u won overwhelming support. i would like to ask you how and leading up to those confirmation hearings you were able to maintain or gained that level of the impartiality and the acceptance? >> i am sure a lot of things having nothing to do with me went into it. i do not know. your perches in different ways. it is a difficult process to be honest with you. -- you approach it in different ways. you also get to a point where -- at the time i was 50 years old. i had been practicing law for 25 years and you get to a point where you want to prepare and make sure you know good answers
1:56 pm
to the questions, and you get to a point where you say i have lived a life i have led and if they do not like it, they do not have to vote for me. i have developed a views about what i think judges should be like and how they should go about interpreting the constitution. there is only so much you can do about that. it is not a time when you should change how you look at life or the law simply because you have a process coming forward. when to get the perspective on it, your part of the process becomes pretty easy. >> thank you. >> so nobody is offended later, i would like to make the young man be our last question. we will not add to the line, because chief justice has already had a very busy day. >> do you feel that america is ready to repeal do not asked to
1:57 pm
do not tell or deerfield that as a younger generation policy? -- do not ask, do not tell or do you feel that is a younger generation policy? >> that is an issue that could become before the courts are cannot talk about that. thank you. >> thank you for coming here tonight. i had a question about if you disagree with prayer rulings, i know and mcdonnell vs. chicago, you and five other justices found that the second amendment applies due to the due process clause, but justice thomas said it applied due to the privileges and immunities and that seems to be at odds with the slaughterhouse cases. do you find it difficult to write in your opinion if you disagree and hard to go about doing that? >> the issue in that case.
1:58 pm
justice thomas wrote a very compelling opinion basing their right of issue on the privileges and immunities clause, which requires the slaughterhouse cases were inconsistent with that. and it struck me, and in t i cannot speak for the others that however right he might have been, it was a lot of heavy lifting to say we will overturn a precedent that has been established since 1870. it the law had developed on a different road, you're stuck on that road. ithe first thing i do when we gt a case is i look at the cases that have interpreted it already. we do not start with a clean slate every morning. that is why we have those row after row of books in the conference room and in our offices that have old cases.
1:59 pm
they tell us where the law will go. that does not mean we do not reject presidents. justice thomas was and we should reject it because it was wrong. and-- was saying we should reject it because it was wrong. it is a good thing in many areas of the law but the court has been able to revisit areas, but there is precedence about how to read president when you overturn it. if it is a statute and we think the court got it wrong, we're probably not going to change our view. congress can change it. if it is a constitution, we are little more willing to take a second look at things, but it is an important -- the cases are important building blocks of the law. you take a very close zero -- very careful look before you
2:00 pm
decide it's time to revisit one of those building blocks. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here and taking my question. do you feel that the state of the union speech is a form for the executive branch to critique any decisions by the supreme court? secondly, do you feel the pull supreme court justices should be present for the speech or do you support of some justices who feel that they do not want to attend? >> i do not need to be dismissive, but i have said what i have to say on that subject, and i do not think it will be good for me to say anything more. >> what about the second part were some supreme court justices do not -- >> some of my colleagues made a decision they do not want p to to go period, and i think that is up to each individual
2:02 pm
2:03 pm
[laughter] it is not so much the computer, but when you get the drugs or over-the-counter stuff like prescriptions, -- u. unfolded like a map. in one case, somebody got a rash from this. it is a real problem. the legal system is to blame for that. we issue these decisions. we say this person should have known that this would happen. we will in favor of that person. we have to warn everybody. when you get too much of that, you have nothing. there are all of these warnings and fine prints you have to read, so you do not read it. if benefits of having the
2:04 pm
warnings is defeated as a result. what's the answer is, i do not know. product liability on your case, consumer use concern moves, i do not think it makes a lot of sense to have another warning. there must be a another effective way so that you should know this. that is for lawyers. the lawyer can say look on page 14. again, and exchange in substance that you would like to see between the provider of a product in a particular user of the product. that gets lost. i think thais a problem. i encourage you all to read it.
2:05 pm
>> this is somewhat related to an earlier question. the people who determine what the constitution means and interpret the law, they play a role in shaping public policy. to you view your decisions -- do you view your decisions are partially based on policies under consideration or do you look at the law? >> i just look at the law. sometimes that requires a certain things. you know it is to promote free competitn and prevent monopoly. you need to know that if you're going to interpret that correctly. it is not that the policy does not integrate it at all.
2:06 pm
trying to find the policy that congress meant to achieve for the founders meant to achieve. that plays a big role. they have when they make certain search and procedures. they need to know that. those words reflect policy judge meant. you as a judge, you want to issue the right interpretation of those words. it does not mean that you do not go beyond those words. you are going to pursue the policy what ever it is. you have to stick to words. you should understand the policy behind it. >> thanks very much. >> i admirer your courage for allowing the public to ask a question corporate spending
2:07 pm
limits, will corporate interests be represented more than the american people's backs what does this mean for labour unions? >> i may be courageous in letting people ask questions. i am not courageous enough to answer that one. in that area, we are looking at this ourselves. i will not talk about it given the sensitive nature of it. thanks. >> i hope this falls in your where all of coverage. supreme court nominees. as a canadian student, i want to get your opinion or advice or recommendations that you have on how come -- on how canadians
2:08 pm
feel on this. >> it was a big deal when they moved ever so slightly closer to the american model of having members of the legislative branch question nominees. the only thing -- i understand the incident behind it. when you give somebody life tenure, the political branches that represent the people also need to be in that to some point. what i would say is -- it is not my business what they are doing in canada. we are looking at what is good for our system and looking at the confirmation system and what is bad.
2:09 pm
i think there are some ways in which the system is broken down. they look at what they like about it in what they do not like about it. we will look at the pitfalls and adntages. thanks. [applause] we are done? [applause] ok. [applause] >> this afternoon, appearing williams talks about the imports -- aaron williams talks about
2:10 pm
the importance of the peace corps. see it today at 6:40 p.m. eastern here on c-span. earlier this fall, former british prime minister tony blair received the liberty award medal in philadelphia. he received the award from former president bill clinton. that is tonight. >> it is now my great honor to award liberty medal to this one for world citizen, tony blair. [applause]
2:11 pm
>> thank you very much. >> according to the national constitution website, the liberty medal is awarded annually to men and women of courage of conviction that tried to get the blessings of liberty. see him receive this award tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. every weekend on c-span3 experience american history tv. people and events tell the american story. get eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. a historical sites in college campuses as professors delve into america's past. american history tv. all weekend, every weekend on c-
2:12 pm
span3. supreme court justice john paul stevens retired from the high court earlier this year. we will hear comments former law clerks of justice stevens. this panel runs a little more than one hour. >> it is an honor for me to see all of you here. i like seeing my peers here. i was so excited to see everybody. it was a privilege and pleasure for me to present our next panel. this is of particular
2:13 pm
significance to me, because the first thing i learned for harrah's is that she court for stevens. she mentioned that she clerked for justice stevens. we should be aware of any potential bias as a result. i have respect and admiration for her. any intervention i give could be biased. a graduate of the yale law school, she was a law clerk for justice stevens she then worked for the legal counsel for department of justice living ex
2:14 pm
criminal procedure -- looking at criminal procedure. she was a member of the supreme court and appellate practice specializing in public interest litigation. she also lectures at the harvard law school most recently, she served as executive director of the supreme court institute here at georgetown. she teaches a new seminar workshop. her experience as a former clerk makes her the perfect person to moderate this panel. she has been nothing short of instrumental of making today's event a reality. for her tireless enthusiastic support and encouraging ideas, this symposium would not have been possible. i would like to take a moment to thank professor harris for being
2:15 pm
2:16 pm
we are looking to how his role on the court may have changed over time. we are fortunate to have with us a remarkable panel to share this perspective. among them, i do not know how recently you have updated this. we have some supreme court arguments, which is a remarkable number. i hope that at the end of our discussion, and we will be part of the sign -- same conversation. i will introduce the panel. a remarkable group. general policy adviser. before assuming her current
2:17 pm
position, she worked in the white house department of justice for the clinton administration. she was a partner. she was a former clark -- clerk to justice stevens he served as solicitor donald. the before that, he was a solicitor journal as well. he has been a senior fellow at our supreme court institute. he has served during the last administration as well. he was my colleague corking
2:18 pm
further chief justice harry when chris. -- clerking for chief justice harry rehnquist. i have had the pleasure of working with him for many years. we will start with one of the most public roles the justice stevens has played on the court. that is for oral argument. this is one place where justice absence may be felt. it may be different without justice stevens they're asking his question.
2:19 pm
>> i tried to characterize one applicants perspective. every advocate feels keenly interested in this. the three words are humility devastating, and kind. i want to start with humility. justice stevens would often ask with a preface that such s -- may i ask a question. of course you can. you are the supreme court justice. you can do whatever you want. i think it says it somewhere for advocates that there is no such thing as stupid questions, just
2:20 pm
a stupid answer. there was no reason for the justice to be so humble in his approach to council other then i think that is just to the justice is and how he conducts himself. you would think with his kind of demeanor, he would have a softball question helpful to the advocate. the opposite is true of justice stevens. never for a second should have an advocate for justice stevens ever thought that because it was humble that it was not want to
2:21 pm
be extremely threatening for your entire case. [laughter] and there was kindness in the questions of justice stevens. this is maybe the most remarkable thing. he had such a long and distinguished to renew -- tenure, yet he never seemed to forget what it was like to be a council or a lawyer arguing i remember very distinctly where i was for the united states was supporting. things were not going all that well. at one point, justice stevens voted against something. the lawyer was having trouble. there was a harder question down
2:22 pm
the road. it was a simple question of the age discrimination abhorrent acts and when it was enacted by congress. the lawyer did as close an impression to a human being as he could. a deer in the headlights. justice stevens was not butssarily of sets -- upset said it was a good time ago. he managed to get to the devastating question that followed. that anecdote shows he had a job to do. he asked the fall of question. he got there in a way that was very kind and understanding. it was hard to argue in front of the court.
2:23 pm
sometimes it seems like judges can lose sight of that fact, but justice stevens never did. >> thanks. thanks to georgetown for putting this event together. a remarkable career of public service. i am honored to be here in the presence of these great panel members. thanks for leaving my name out of that last one. [laughter] i appreciate that a great deal. [laughter] arguing in front of the court is a tremendous privilege. especially to argue in front of justice stevens. i will give a couple of anecdotes. i want to place it into historical perspective. one thing that is interesting to think about is the way that
2:24 pm
arguments are now and the way they were at the time the justice stevens came out of the court. take a quick look at transcripts from then and compared to today. look at what happened in the last term. you ask questions. justice stevens asked questions, devastating though they were, later on in the argument and fewer in number. if you look back at what happened in 1975, there may be a clue as to why that is the case. there were death penalty cases that came out of that raise the question of can this be constitutionally imposed. there was a major abortion case.
2:25 pm
look at those transcripts and recordings. one thing that is remarkable is if you look at credit payable georgia, some of the capital cases from that term, the number of minutes, there were nine minutes before the first question was asked of an advocate. there was one question in the first 10 minutes of another. i am not saying that is necessarily typical, but i do not think he will see that kind of a phenomenon today. if you look at capital cases and abortion cases towards the end of his tenure, in that case, the petitioners -- he got 32 seconds before the first question came.
2:26 pm
then the abortion case. he got 60 seconds before the first question. it may be questioning pattern is interesting to ask. that may be similar to the day when he first ascended to the court. i pulled out a transcript from one of my own arguments to remind myself how uncomfortable one can be. when we looked, i will go through this interchange. he seemed to ask questions later on in the arguments. they were devastating in effect. when you look at coming questions did the justice s, it is hard to pin that down.
2:27 pm
does the following account as a question, may i ask a question? we do not count it a question unless there is more than one viable answer. [laughter] i will read this and then i will stop. it is from a public school districts. it is about a complicated interpretation. it broken-down -- the way it broke down is those people seem to think we had a tough argument. something we had a pretty favorable argument in terms of this statute. a classical dichotomy between purpose and legislative direction. and in the other direction and what are you supposed to do with counsel? if you try to avoid that point, but justice stevens did not
2:28 pm
allow that kind of indulgence. here is the exchange. man and ask a question? a rather basic question. -- may i ask a question, a rather basic question? i am convinced by you that this is not what congress intended. so what should i do? [laughter] laughter is the answer. i think at my expense. here is the response. i would not put this at the height of advocacy. [unintelligible] [laughter] laughter -- justice stevens will no except for my premise, what do you think i should do? you have to find the approach.
2:29 pm
justice stevens says i do not think it has to be a certain one. i would measure by what congress intended. i am convinced by you that they intended to perpetuate the prior method or procedure. i think the language says winter upon it would say. this is a dilemma. you want to answer the question in a way that will gain new his vote, but you also want to answer the question not to cost you someone else's vote. so that could pose a real dilemma. if it compels that, it would be a difficult position. they tell us to be guided by the language of the statute. you still have a church of the
2:30 pm
holy trinity team somewhere don't you? that is an old case that stands to the proposition that in some situations you can give stance to legislative purpose overtaxed. i think nobody did that as a deliciously as justice stevens did. >> thanks very much for having us here. it is a great privilege to be here especially with the justice here today. i think they captured wonderfully what justice stevens is like. i wanted to return to one of the first points. it is important to understanding the current court in the role of justice stevens. it often times seems that they are racing to get the first question asked at oral argument. it was very rare that justice
2:31 pm
stevens had the first questions asked in oral argument. he would hang back and perhaps see what his colleagues were thinking. near the end of the oral argument, he would ask a question. it would oftentimes be the question that the fund the rest of the oral argument. i used to think of it from an advocate perspective of the old show ","." yue -- columbo." you feel like things are going to work. then justice stevens says, i just have one question. that would be the question you did not want to get. it is where your case could unravel. he was really effective at that. to look at the oral argument transcripts of the supreme court, my guess is you would see justice stevens' name more
2:32 pm
than any other justices named. when another justice followed up, such as justice kennedy, he would want to enter justin stevenson's question. that isn't -- cancer justice answer justice steven's question. that shows you how effective and relevant he is. although sometimes he is unpredictable. in one argument, he asked me if i knew the meaning of a word. this was regarding the sec expletive policy. it was one of those questions that looked at the government's position and asked it in a very interesting way. i think he also really perfected the art of asking questions
2:33 pm
through perspective that you would not have guessed. as an advocate, you are thinking, the justice is asking me thiquestion. someone from a different perspective is going to ask it this way. you want to know if it is questionable and answerable. what would be devastating for an advocate is when a justice asks a question from the perspective that would surprise you. in one case that i had, it was over the scope of someone's jurisdiction with respect to the health of american citizens and a multinational force overseas. it was a wartime context. justice stevens had remarks on the court.
2:34 pm
is head of advanced a fairly robust interpretation. in the rebuttal, justice stevens suggested that the government had not gone far enough and it did not extend overseas. he asked me if iraq was a war zone. i said, yes. i ask, where is this question heading. maybe the government had not gone far enough. as an advocate, you ask, what am i missing? his questions could be so devastating. they seemed so simple to say to give the answer that would make perfect sense. you never knew where the other shoe was going to drop and if the case was going to fall apart. and i want to a convey my thanks. the respect that justice stevens
2:35 pm
showed for the advocate in a case, the matter whether he was with your side or what he thought of your position, he was always very respectful. it was greatly appreciated. >> what did you want to talk about? >> i agree with everything the panel said. one is when he was not asking questions. his demeanor on the court when he was listening. one of the things i feel strongly about was his amazing ability to be a listener. and to be very strategic in shape the court threw biding his time and having a sense of timing. sitting back and taking the moment when he would make this point. there are a lot of aspects to that. i think he was a judge that comes from a lawyer's
2:36 pm
background. he is someone who cared a lot about the facts. the practical impact of a case, whether it is industry or a practical environments. he counted on the lawyer to present a case. i have not spoken to him specifically about this. my sense was that if he had his way, he would go back to the work advocates could have 10 minutes to present their case. some of his colleagues on the court, they were thinking of their next question. that would happen instead of listening to their colleagues. i always felt watching justice
2:37 pm
stevens that he was really listening to the advocates. he would also listen to his colleagues. then he uld come in at the end with a devastating questions that would some of in many a -- ways the impact of this. he always listened to the advocate. a couple of cases come to mind. one was a case that was argued by a person who is allenging the pledge of allegiance in california. this was someone who considered themselves an atheist. their daughter had to recite a pledge. it was very passionate. i do not mean that in a bad way. justice stevens had a very strong sense of where he stood with relation to this question. he was very effective at
2:38 pm
conveying that passion. i remember watching the lawyer talk about this. the other justices -- i felt he was telling his perspective on how his daughter felt. i have the sense of justice stevens listening and watching and being very compelled. the ability to listen was very profound. there was a case involving pre- emption of state. the lawyers presented a strong case about the practical impact of class actions in terms of industry and economic impact. there were some colloquy -- there was colloquy on it. the impact on the industry was
2:39 pm
talked about. i felt it was stevens who was really focused on this and the impact of it. the background as a business lawyer and concern for the facts and the impact had a big role in how he listened to advocates. hanging back, having a sense of timing, waiting to make his mark in the argument, the act of listening that he did with respect to oral arguments, affected the way he approached a case. >> i cannot resist adding a few words. i think justice stevens was one of the best listeners on the court. that is what allowed him to ask those devastating questions. he actually membered everything that was set up to that point. we read the oral argument
2:40 pm
transcript of one case about the sister to a 13 year old girl. stevens had the single most devastating question during that argument. the lawyer for the school got up and spoke about whether student informants were reliable or not. the lawyer said we know they are reliable, because they can be disciplined. everyone is thinking about their next question. justice stevens said how was this girl disciplined? the lawyer says, she was not disciplined at all. [laughter] that does not happen unless you are listening to what is going on. i think there is an important linkage between the listening and nature of the question. i totally agree with what has
2:41 pm
been said here. not just a matter of saying may i in trying not to interrupt. it was polite in a very substantive way. he asked good questions. sometimes it is hard to figure out what counts as a question, and what does not. these are not real questions. you are talking to your colleagues, to force council to make a session. you want them to be a part of the process. i think the politeness of justice stevens was very substantive. he made council part of the process. he thought he might learn something. that is the deepest kind of respect you can give a lawyer. i had the opportunity to do
2:42 pm
this. even so, it was a rare pleasure. some of the things you were saying about the kinds of questions that stevens would ask, i want to talk about what kind of a judge justice stevens was. what was important to him as a judge. professor green talked about this earlier. we can try to address some of the same questions from a different perspective. >> humility is the first word that comes out of my mouth when i think about justice stevens. he is the type of guy that if you were a gas station attendant, he would be a great boss.
2:43 pm
he is a great guy. his humility and kindness. as a judge, that is the first word i think of when i think of him. he has a particular regard, a sense of humility about the unique role of judges in our system. i often say -- his approach is like a blind man feeling the elephant. there is this reality out there that must be pronounced upon. he approaches it with a humility with someone who can only grasp one piece of this reality. it is based on the one thing before you. i think that is what made him what i think is an ultimate judge. you feel a trunk and describe what you think it is.
2:44 pm
you take one taste at a time. judges are human. they have this incredible power. he was conscious of the role of power. he was also humble in the face of it. do your job well and do not shrink from it. also go further. i think his humility as a human being and a person and the profound sense that they talk about it was a genuine respect the the that he knows what others do not stuff. the he really contributed to a case by case look at the law. he did not believe in the bright lights necessarily. we are not legislators. pronounced in advance the wills that people should -- that should govern the affairs of people. but he tries to come up with
2:45 pm
rules for that particular matter. >> if he was unpredictable in his questioning, and how did you strategically think about preparing and presenting a case to justice stevens? how do you think about his judicial methodology and presenting a case to him? >> one thing that unites almost everybody on this panel is we were advocates before justice stevens after he had already been on a bench for 20 or 25 years. we had an advantage. this enormous body of prudence contributed to. it was revealing of what justice stevens thought about the issue. he was so willing, despite a
2:46 pm
many contradictionm -- ini cmini-contradiction. he would write a dissent for a comment. in the early years of his career on the bench, there were a lot of times where he would write separately to express those views. i tried as an advocate was to try to take a step back and not look at the issue from a doctrinal perspective, but look at how the individual justices would approach that issue. in that context, that was a great it vantage, because there was this body of opinions out there.
2:47 pm
i sort of sympathize with those who are arguing in front of justice stevens in his first couple of years on the court. he surprises you with all of that the data. i can imagine how one would want to prepare for the argument in the early years. >> this is consistent with what he said about him being a common law judge. he approached cases from a practical perspective as well. as an advocate, you would want to think about the case from a practical perspective. often times he would talk about he doctrinal issues and ask questions. you saw in his opinions as well, ways that he would surprise you. the old as justice on the court, the his practical perspective on
2:48 pm
things, often times it reflected a more useful perspective. a case involving a high-speed police chase. when could a police officer use deadly force in that case? there was a videotape in the case about the squad car with suspects fleeing. the justice wrote an opinion. it suggested that the justice was horrified by what took place. stevens was the lone dissenter. he said, had my colleagues learned to drive and most high- speed driving to a gone -- took place on rose then superhighways. [unintelligible] [laughter]
2:49 pm
it is kind of surprising to hear that in elder man would have this perspective on driving. in this case, one of the issues was the profound meaning of the "f" word. as any golfer who has wash's partner shank, it could -- watch his partner shank a shot, it is understandable that it could be in the sense. [unintelligible] [laughter] related to that was this rich, historical perspective that he provided to the court and the country. he lived through so much of the nation's history. this is someone who saw the world series game coming from chicago.
2:50 pm
that is hard to believe. i think it was the practical perspective that provided a real service in court. >> on the practical side, one thing that struck me was the number of times that justice stevens would ask a certain type of question. he asked the advocate a question about the number of convictions that resulted in the death penalty and the number that resulted from a murder case. it reminded me of an argument we had where we were making the argument that an agency had adopted a regulation that had preemptive force to it. the question i got is if you have that view of the agency's role, how many regulators did the agency have so that it could
2:51 pm
take on this new found regulatory role? i did not know the answer to that question. the other thing i would say is there is a dichotomy between the rules and standards. one thing, some justices can see the case in some terms others, and stevens will look for a particular facts that tip the balance in one direction or the other. there are over arching considerations that might persuade some justices to lean in your direction. there may be other considerations. a couple of cases come to mind.
2:52 pm
one deals with the extent to which the federal for class actions can trump state law. some thought it could happen quite often. justice stevens had an opinion right in the middle. sometimes. there was another case about what the word proceeds means under the money laundering statute. one thought profits. the other says it made a gross receipts. and in the middle, it could sometimes mean gross receipts and sometimes profits, depending on the particular consideration. that was the individualistic consideration that could tip t balance in one direction or another.
2:53 pm
>> the attention to facts was also a revelation for me. you hear about constitutional law in law school. some say the facts matter, but you may not really believe it. then when you get in his chamber, he is famous for writing his own drafted opinions. a lot of the effort went into the fact section. for the justice, writing the facts, that part of the opinion really helped him to focus his mind in the guide the rest of the decision. it was about the facts. very vivid in the amount of time and attention he spent on that part of his opinion. he ran his chambers in a way
2:54 pm
that it reflected a lot about the way he saw his role as a judge and justice. there were thoughts about the other justice procedures. >> i think the way in which he drafted his opinion and the emphasis on the facts -- i recall him saying if you really focus on the facts when drafting them, the law sometimes wrote itself. that was a huge part of its. when i was clerking the last year justice marshall was on the court, he considered extremely important to have independent
2:55 pm
checks on the idea that one course analysis could move that many boats. justice stevens chamber, we got an incredible sense of the lay of a federal law. you read hundreds and hundreds and maybe thousands. he did not always write memos on them. we had this no-memo arrangement where it was not even a close question. if we thought it was a close question, then we would write the memo. we did not think it rose to the level.
2:56 pm
it is important of the individual judgments in making sure the chambers reviewed every single case and not submit to a generalized statement. >> the justices were willing to write solar -- solo opinions. i agree that it is not consistent with the overall humility that he brought to the role. what role they play in the court. >> labette ron numbers. this is courtesy of the numbers
2:57 pm
for the supreme court. the number of solo defense over the past is roughly 50 years or so. roughly the same as the rest of the court combined. if you look at the cases, i do not think you would say that they are not high-profile cases. last term, there is a case that one person are you. justice stevens was the lone defender in that case. these are not a couple of paragraphs to since. -- dissents. these are very meaty dissents.
2:58 pm
there were three from last year where the sentiment coming from justice stevens was dazzling day as the majority opinion of the other eight. a real care and commitment to these cases. they were on the front page news so to speak. think about the extent to which knowledge on the part of the majority that there is going to be a majority opinion. i could see that if you are in the majority and you know there is going to be a dissent, you may structure of the majority opinion differently than if you are in the majority. particularly the type that justice stevens was right. >> i think that is one way in
2:59 pm
which you can reconcile the humility that i think justice stevens in the separate writings did a great service for the rest of the court. i suspect one of the opinions written by the court that are most likely to have you erroneous reasoning or the unanimous opinions. there is nobody there does of pending the majority opinion writers. i think that is a great service to the court as a whole. the same can be said for your nonparticipation. i can say from personal experience as someone who wrote memos for one sector, you wrote a better member -- memo knowing that the stevens chambers would put the case on the list or did their independent analysis. a case where you were really --
3:00 pm
you may not have been sure it was searched worthy. it could of been easy to mail it in when it came to the pull memo. knowing that stevens -- when i was on the court, clerking, it had that same discipline in affect. the one thing i wanted to add was it would be a mistake to think the separate writings were this quirky view this was brought home to me more clearly than in any other circumstance when i was getting ready to argue the united states against bulger case, about the affect on the cases of the
3:01 pm
federal sentencing guidelines. in preparing that argument, i came across a dissent justice stevens had written. it was a descent from an opinion of the court called the united states against watts. the question was whether was permissible under the guidelines. it was a question whether under the guidelines it was permissible to use acquitted conduct for which [unintelligible] 8 justices thought this was so simple that they dismissed it. justice stevens wrote a dissent which was not only remarkable in that he took time to write this remarkable dissent, but i read it and realized every single aspect of up randy was sitting there in that lone dissent for a
3:02 pm
justice. i will tell an antidote -- ellis said taken by that, i tried to use the fact that eight justices had affected this approach in watts to which justice stevens interjections -- interjected that shows they don't listen to me enough. what i think then becomes remarkable is that justice stevens knows the answer to this and i don't, it must be incredibly satisfying to have your solo opinion become the majority opinion of the court, especially in such a consequential area of the law. yet, you never have the sense justice stevens viewed the cases as his special cases or something he owned. he did not write all of the opinions. he shared the opinions and, as many of the things with justice
3:03 pm
stevens, it was not only humble, but pretty darn uprooted. now that he is no longer there to lead the court on these issues, it probably helps the shared the mantle of these cases with other justices who are still up there and feel as strongly about those line of cases as justice stevens did from the get go. >> i think all of these traits that together. you have the humility and a sense of the long view. his sense of timing that we talk about, his participation, i never had the sense of justice stevens viewed himself as someone trying to command a court majority. he was very strategic in the sense that i think he assumed at some point the court majority would form by the power of the idea. you did not have the sense of these ridings being these quirky
3:04 pm
little things. it was a strategic sense of sitting back, letting the court evolve and having a long view of the subject matter. eventually, in many areas, the court did come around and embrace his view. i think it was a sense of humility, that he is one person with eight strong colleagues and he's not going to try to win every time. a sense of fate in the capacity of threesome. >> the first panel talked about continuity and his jurisprudence. there has been of talk over whether his role in the court changed over time. he went from someone who is practically eccentric and recipes opinions and did not care about strategic consideration.
3:05 pm
he ended up almost unexpectedly as a real leader of the more liberal justices on the court, and unexpectedly shrewd tactician and strategist. obviously there are changes and that those changes affected his role. he assigned things in a way he did not used to. from the beginning, he did have a long view and did think strategically. he was not writing these separate opinions, certainly not just for fun than to not just out of a commitment to getting each case right. but it was generous that in the end, you move through the power
3:06 pm
of your ideas and it was worth doing on that account. i have always thought that the justice i court for in 1993 -- it does not surprise me at all that you flash forward 15 or 20 years, he is playing this kind of leadership role on the court. >> justice stevens was not always in the dissent. he wrote the majority decision in many important cases. one of the things he did effectively was the decision of to him to assign the opinion when he was the senior justice and had that authority. i think you can take for granted that if you've got those, it does not matter who writes. often time, it can matter who writes in terms of what the decision says and whether or not you can hold together five
3:07 pm
votes. justice stevens seemed to be particularly affected in making that decision. i think this is another area where it shows his humility. you would expect as a senior justice, one of the fun things to do is right in the most important cases, but in some cases, he decided to sign the decision to other justices. >> we still have a few minutes, so if there are questions from the audience, we would love to hear from you. >> i would like to ask the members of the panel to what extent they believe or advocacy influences the outcome of the case? i will outline the times when justices have strong views. i would like to ask the members of the panels or clerk to justice, which of his predecessors during the 20th- century do they feel he had an
3:08 pm
especially high regard for and why? >> the person we would really like to hear from as to what affect oral argument really has is sitting rig there. it seems foolhardy to speculate, but i would say two things -- it may have mattered more to justice stevens and other justices on the court. i did have a feeling even in cases where i would go back to 20 years of jurisprudence and think he's going to be a tough vote to get that he had an open mind about the cases, and it's also true that there are cases where his vote in the uprising a lot of people. a case i argued a few years ago involving the voter i.d. lot in indiana, justice stevens was in
3:09 pm
a six justice group of justices that produced an opinion, neither was a majority opinion. but he was in the camp that wrote nearly to let the law go forward and concluded there was not of a basis in the record to strike the law down. judging by the press coverage, that is a position that surprised a number of people. for justice stevens, it really did make a difference. i have often thought that question gets asked from an artificial perspective. you have a lousy as case in the world, can the advocate poll one rabbit out of their hat after another to turn the case around? particularly in the supreme court, a key is to write a brief they get to to the point where oral argument might make a difference for your client. my sense of the court, though i
3:10 pm
would prefer to hear from justice stevens, is that is the name of the game, to write a brief where the oral argument to make a difference. >> the only thing i when at is we tend to think he oral argument from the advocates -- and other fundamentally and maybe more important argument is is the first time for the justices to get a sense of what each other is thinking. the justices are moving each other and because the questions can be so affected, just by asking us questions, he can't move his colleagues even as the advocates were not. >> arguments can expose fissures in a position. cases are largely shaped by the briefing and having not been on the other side, i would gather
3:11 pm
the justices come to the bench with predilections about where they are headed. there is just a way that -- you learn this in court, it can expose the fishers and force you to come to grips with the larger implications of the way briefing does not. that is the alter the purpose of oral argument. there is another aspect to the question from the perspective of people of clerked for him, so i cannot speak from that perspective. the only thing i can say is that i applied. [laughter] i will say the rejection letter was exceptionally courteous. [laughter] >> it is hard to answer the question about which justice influenced him the most. the only answer i have heard it justice stephen speak of is the justice he clerked for. i guess i don't think of justice
3:12 pm
stevens as thinking about somebody's impact on a broad sense of what justices are trying to do. the very careful judges to focus case by case and let the law to emerge from that. justice rutledge was someone who did that -- focused on every single case and what the results emerged naturally. >> this is exciting for me. and therst-year student procedure we just read -- this question as moseley for you -- just out of curiosity, i don't want to put words in mr. stevens mouth, but i got the idea he
3:13 pm
disagreed with atlantic, so if you are prepared to argue that you know there's this disagreement, how do you prepare for that knowing justice stevens'role of the court? is that different from knowing how to prepare a few other -- what i'm trying to say is would you prepared differently knowing he was the one who disagreed with the relative to other justices of the court who might disagree with you? >> i think you tend to approach the argument with more fear. it is one of those cases where you would read the decision very carefully and expect, as i think it occurred, very practical questions about how it worked under the procedure. but that argument is a case of justice stevens saying something surprising. he had some sympathy for our
3:14 pm
position that we would when under bell atlantic, so you think that's good. but ultimately, he approached it from a different perspective. [laughter] >> i think we are finishing right on schedule. i hope you will join me in thanking the panelists for their time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> here is our schedule on this thanks to the holiday. coming up, a look at a new book on u.s. education and ways to improve the american system. then, remarks from ricardo
3:15 pm
sanchez who retired as the highest ranking hispanic member of the military in 2006. after that, members of the u.k. youth parliament gather in the house of congress for -- house of commons for a debate on domestic issues, including sex education in schools at the rising cost of university tuition fees. >> when all new governors take office, democrats will have 19 and democrats will have 29. when race has yet to be called. the battle is leigh beat recount process and decisions could be weeks away. one new republican governor will be that meat of wyoming. he afford it -- he defeated leslie peterson. he succeeds the democrat who chose not to seek reelection. he is the grandson of a former wyoming governor and served as a u.s. attorney from 2001-2007.
3:16 pm
>> this weekend on "afterwards" -- with polling data from eight arab countries, muslims are questioned about stereotypes, 9/11, and the war of terror. it is part of our extended holiday weekend of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2. >> now, a discussion on a new book looking at u.s. education and ways to improve the american system. this is from this morning's "washington journal." urning to education reform. joining us at the table, samuel casey carter. with the new book on purpose.
3:17 pm
how did you come up with these and why did these four traits matter? guest: good morning, happy thanks giving. good to see you. first, that a strong belief that culture determines outcomes. that's really the headline. all across the country we've got 3 million teachers and some 115,000 schools all doing their best every day to serve 52.7 million children as best they can. what you have is often you've got people responding and reacting to what the demands of the day are. and what you've got is a simple belief that with an insistent consistent persistent vision that what is good for childre that outcome will occur. so how did i come upon that? you see it in action in these great schools. second, that what you have is
3:18 pm
you've got a culture that s been commited to the children's success. you've got the third, i think maybe i've got these out of order, a nurturing but demanding culture. it's like a home. you have a school where you want what's best for the child and you're going to look the child in the eye and s you have to do better. school is hard work and you have to do hard in order to do well. those are the kinds of principles that come to life in a great school culture. host: what does that translate to? higher grades? guest: the book does three things really. says how school cultures are formed and we need to know. secondly, that school culture forms student character. all schools have aharacter for good or for ill that insin wuts itself into the life of the child. but the third thing, the magic here, the question you're getting at is how is it that a
3:19 pm
great school culture harnesses that achievement? when you focus on the child, the individual happiness of that child, what you're going to get is a child who knows not only what is good, which is what the strigs is all about, but that she is good. and when a child understands that and sees all of the adults in the building focused on who she is as a person, that's when this extraordinary confidence comes to life and that's when children then risk the attainment of difficult things. so the answer to your question is yes. what you see is artiss tick achievement, muse kk achievement. but, above all else, school is academic achievement. host: what about math and science? because that seems to be the big push that americans are losing our competitivenessness in those two areas. so does school culture and strong character translate to a better focus and higher grades
3:20 pm
on math and science? guest: it can. right? particularly in grade schools where we're focusinon. so the short answer to your question is, let's have these great school cultures that understand how to shape a vision where the children know what we're all striving for. let's take high tech. this high. this is not a school that appears on purpose but this is an extraordinary set of schools in california that have one of the best, most articulated visions of math and science in the country, schools that easily could have made it into this book and yet it translate into into remarkably high mantsdz and test scores. and we're losing our edge internationally. and what this book is trying to do is raise the bar. we have a can conversation in this country about the failure to educate low income inner city children. this is also saying that all
3:21 pm
schools in the natio need to step up their game because right now on the trends of the third mathematics, international science study, the gold standard of where america stacks up competitively worldwide, host: step up their game. how so? guest: the united states of america needs to understand that the children in school today are competing for the same jobs with children worldwide. my daughters are nine and seven years old today have to compete or will have to compete very soon in thfuture with children in mumbai. in singapore, and we neeto understand that. if we can't compete with those children, if we don't have the same skills and content, and the ability to apply the math and science questions, if we
3:22 pm
don't have the ability to apply those skills that we learn this school to real world examples. then our children won't be able to provide the products and service that is the world is the going to need in the future and those children in singapore and mumbai are going to be able to take those jobs away, not just from others out there but from my very ownaughters. host: so are you saying that money doesn't matter? guest: nice question. i'm not saying that money doesn't matter. i am saying, though, that in the first instance, let's take the question from two angles. first, does money matter in school we spent half a trillion dollars a year every year in the united states of america educating children 5 to 18. i say we don't need more money. we need to reallocate that money. we need to spe that money better. but let's take the money doesn't matter question differently. the book is called on purpose. the point of that is that we need to do things on purpose. we need to intentionally bring
3:23 pm
about a certain kind of schooling in order to get the kinds of outcomes that we want for children. but when we think more broadly about what is a school for, what do we do in schools? this book argues that we're trying to help children discover their own life's purpose. sure, money matters, margin meashts. margin, no mission we say in business. but if children don't wake up every day and want to discover who they are and aren't told to believe in themselves, it's very difficult for them to then naturally wantingly to obtain the skills that will then give them the skillset that they need to make money that they need in the workplace host: so to write this book you went to 12 different schools. what type of schools did you go to? guest: started with 3,500 schools. and the performance data
3:24 pm
associated with those schools all across the country. narrowed that down to 350. to focus on schools that have extraordinary outcomes, whether that be academic, athletic, musical or otherwise. but that have a schoolwide focus on character formation, on the formation of the child. and from that 350, then did a comparative study of 39 of them . to then come up with these 12. and the great thing about these 12, the whole purpose of selecting these 12 were to find the most geographic, demographic, diverse schools that we could find. so we found two that are private, two that are public charters, three that are public mag neths. an then the other five are local public schools in nine separate states, east, south, west, midwest. and the whole point is then show that this can be done in any school setting in america. right? but that what we need o do is
3:25 pm
see what greatness looks like, remind ourselves what a great school can do, and then give everybody the encouragement to shape school cult zurs. host: students, teachers, parents, numbers on the screen for you. we want to hear from students, teachers, parents this morning. our tic, education reform. and you were talking about the different types of schools, private, public, charter, magnet. it sounds like the governmt and school is not all that clear when it comes to schools that are thriving. guest: that's a good point. let's get to the question behind the point. the reality is that 90%, 9-0 of all the children in the united states today go to public schools. public schools of different kind
3:26 pm
the role of government does matter in the formation of the young because the large balance of children in our schools are going to government schools. what i wanted to do is demonstrate that there are private schools, public charters, different mechanisms to get at great outcomes. and you're right, it is not necessarily the role of government that then drives these outcomes and ifact one very important point about this book is that there are barriers to getting more schools of this kind. and in fact, this book goes to great lengths to demonstrate that what we need to do is reward, encourage and start the formation of more schools like this. and that gets to the question of whether or not the 15,000 school districts in the united states of america are always and everywhere driving quality. >> host: so what type of princle are at these schools? guest: tremendous question. and school leadership is absolutely essential to great
3:27 pm
schooling. what on purpose does though it takes it to another level and says school leadership is necessary but in itself is insufficient. and what this is really about is great teaching. and on purpose is a real more testimony to the peachers in these schools where that leadership is more distributed more broadly to a larger number of people who believe in the same vision as the school leader and then who work together as team players. teachers who work in teams. teachers who work to obtain the same measurable goal are the kinds of teachers in these schools that get these incredible outcomes for children. host: so part of the traits is this it sounds like the culture part of it is sort of a voluntary action on the part of teache or leaders in the school. so what, where does that come from and how is that fostered? guest: the book makes some effort in the beginning to say
3:28 pm
that schools are formed in a very certain way. and i say that schoolsnd the school culture is formed almost invariably as a reaction to something. there's a remarkable story of hillsdale central in illinois just outside of chicago where the entire student body or the entire community led by the principal was then guided by the vice principal and the teachers to recoax the school after a tragic accident -- not accident. after a suicide of wo students in what was a veryean, bullying school. the formation of school culture is a reaction to them saying, look, with need to do things differently. now, let's take the school in the inner city of chicago, in the inner city of lwaukee. these are schools that are reacting to the street culture saying we don't want that for
3:29 pm
our children. we want something better. so in reacting to that, responding to that and saying we need very basic principles to guide what we do want in response to that, that then the principal through th leadership then all of the teachers coming together say, ok, let' then establish basic practices that will help bring those principles to life. that's when it happens. so everybody starts changing, we talk differently, dress delinchtly, behave delinchtly. that's what we mean by a culture. low and behold, all of a sudden children are in a place that's very coherent, where everything they hear throughout the day is the same. and then they say this is the way we do things in our school. we're not going to be mean. we're going to take care of each other. children are safe to take the risks to do the great things that i write about. host: go ahead, kimberly. caller: my question is, i'm calling from florida and i want
3:30 pm
to know how do we challenge this character when we don't have these programs that allow the students to be a part of character building? everything is about s cat drinch. guest: great question. and for our listeners who aren't in florida, the f cat is the florida achievement test and a great question. if you have time, go to port stnch john florida and go see for yourself atlantis elementary which is featured a great school there on the space coast not so far from cape canaveral where they use the culture getting back to our science and math conversation earlier surrounding manned space flight in order to drive so much of the values driven culture. but to your question. you're right. if we have a, just this
3:31 pm
prevalent focus on test scores and test scores alone, it's going to be difficult for us to then focus on the children. and you've already put your finger on it. if there is one insight in this book, it's that when we focus on anything else but the children, what we end up doing is then just responding to whether it's the needsf the building, the needs of the book, the needs of the buses. rather than the needs of the children. now, i'm not saying that the f cat does not matter. it doesn't matter. but the way that you max that sce out of the park is by making sure the children are happy rst, making sure that they know whthey come to school. make sure that they know why they're pursuing their subject. and it's in going back and having the focus on what matters that then that f cat
3:32 pm
score will just rise. i'm not just being hopeful and optimistic about it. it's a fact. great schools focus on children, not the tests. host: parent in st. joe texas. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i have a statement and then a question for you. first, i think that school, going to school is -- should be considered an opportunity, and right now it seems we have very little parent involvement in so many cases that kids don't do well in schl because there's poor discipline, it's a distraction for those children who would like to go to school. so i think if we had an atmosphere of class for learning, i think that all the kids would do better. and after school programs could
3:33 pm
not only help keep kids off the street, but i could, i think, influence them heavily to want to make better use of opportunities in school, and that children -- school should not be the baby sitter for our children. i think that with parent involvement, that's a big part of the answer. and a request i would make is that if c-span could cover something about prohibition on drugs, i think that, again, rather than be a nanny state we should be a state that educates our children against the use of drugs rather than locking everybody up. host: we'll leave it there. guest: thank you for the call. thank you for the question. just a number of really important points that you make simultaneously. one, school has an opportunity.
3:34 pm
and what you're doing there is you're getting at the hopeful message of this book, on purpose. children do need to see that school is an opportunity. we might go so far as to say school is a privilege. and on thanks giving, you know, at a better day for us to remember that we live in possibly the only super power in the planet right now. and in order to live in free society, in order to live in a democracy that we have, tom, we need to be educated. and you're right, like yourself, i don't believe in the nanny state. and in fact, i think i believe in the greatness of america. and one of the things that makes america great is our puic school system. but it can be better. and that's the point. and when children come to school knowing that this is a place of opportunity and this is a place that's going to make their opportunities in america greater, well then we'll get the kinds of achievement we'll
3:35 pm
want to see. let's get to your point about parele involvement. to remove the excuse of poverty. children don't get to see their parents very often because those parents are either, a, holding down three jobs in order to be able to keep them in the home. or those children are out of the home and the primary involvement is limited. let's not make the absence of parentalnvvement become an excuse for failure. let's not make schools one-stop-shopping for social service, t but let's be clear that children are in schools for a large portion of the day, and therefore schools have to be places where children are safe and where children are raised well, not in the absence of their parents but in partnership with their parents, if that helps. host: we go to new york. steve, you're a teacher. what grade do you teach?
3:36 pm
[inaudible] guest: i want to say i agree arks and happy thank giving. the reason i'm calling is that i work in a school that i think is a very good school, and when i arted there ten years ago, if the kids were reading and doing math at grade level. and as of last year, up until that year we had gotten up to about 80% reading and doing math at grade level. and then last year the school was back down to 50%. and i think the reason is political. that they change the scores to look like they're under grade level so that they could qualify for more federal aid, for the race to the top money. and it's not a race. it's a right. and so happy thanks giving, everybody. host: happy thanks giving.
3:37 pm
i'm a teacher, m wife is the a teacher. i think that teaching is the single intrinsically the most beautiful thing you can do with your life. congratulations to you on this thanks giving for an incredible vocation that you're pursuing. let's get to some of the points that you're making. don't know obviously the circumstances of your school and what can explain the fall from 80% proficiency to 50% proficiency or advance on what i take to be the new york state assessment. but a broader point that you're making is that no child left behind, the federal law that was passed under the bush administration which set the basic expectation that every single child in the united states of america would be proficient or advance that is on grade level or above by the year 2014 has not resulted in more and more children in america being proficit but it
3:38 pm
has resulted in us changing the definition of profishsy and often lowering it. and you are right, we'reeing inconsistent in the management and the administration, one, of what it means to be on or above ade level. two, how to assess whether we're on or above grade level. and then, three, how we get children there. so you're making a broad point that our listeners and viewers today need to understand, which is, yes, a lot of this is politically driven and these nos are established at state levels. but what we can do is if we have a broader vision of what real success looks like, which gets back to your point earlier about international competitiveness. if we have a basic understanding of what the highest performing public schools in the world expect, if we know what math in singapore and astonia and honghong and tie pay looks like, we're going to have a much better chance of
3:39 pm
making sure that children in cleveland, cincinnati, san francisco, washington, d.c. can apply instead of just over and over having these back and forth smaller level conversations about what fix grade or fourth grade reading might look like in new york. host: student in los angeles. what grade are you in? caller: i'm 28 and but want to talkbout high school and the troles i had. teachers, first i want to say public education is a must and we do need to step up our game around the world. and host: turn that down. it's a little confusing. guest: i believe that teachers aren't getting paid enough a lot of times. i've had really good teachers, really bad teachers in my high school experience. i've had teachers put out of their own pocket to help out in the class.
3:40 pm
but host: let's take your point there about teachers not getting paid enough. guest: good point. thanks for the call. happy thanks giving to you. so the question are teachers paid enough. let's break it down again. the point i made earlier half a trillion dollars an awful lot of money, and yet teachers in the united states of america are ten among the low income spectrum of all employed professionals. so, yes, teachers could be paid more. but it's going to be difficult for us to pay teachers more for us to have merit pay or performance pay systems unless that money gets reallocated from elsewhere. and right now, one of the points that charter schools has made across the country is that charter schools, the 5,500 of them now are doing more with less. and charter schools, particularly those that are independently run are often
3:41 pm
receiving across the country 60 cents on the dollar. yet, so we don't necessarily need more money, but if we're going to pay teachers more, we're going to have to make sure that money gets freed um, from, i would argue the layers of bureaucracy between the individual school buildings and then the school district. the school district and the state, the state then and the federal allocation. of those funds. . . individual performance of the children -- let's reward those teachers because across the country, that is something very dear to me. you will find more variation of
3:42 pm
teacher quality inside a school then you will from school to school, meaning every school in the country has the talent in it today to improve itself. just by tapping the talent of the individual highest performing teachers in the building. host: you look at all different kinds of schools -- public, private, charter, what about the role of unions? guest: 3 million teachers in america, most of whom are unionized. we will have to figure out a way for the unions to undstand and act on this message. when they are team players and teachers in a union behave like team players rather than trying to protect their own individual interests, trying to elevate the overall profession, which is what i talk about, which is what i talk about -- let's talk about unions less and
3:43 pm
professionals and more. about professionals to work together to up each other's game. individual teachers tha i have the time to see the great teaching down the hall and provide observation to reach other. when the teacher is closed in an dividual classroom, the teacher does not have the feedback that she needs to know whether or not she is performing well that day. when schoolsere deeply and when teachers work closely with each other to improve because of practice, to know where the child is today and needs to be tomorrow and change the teaching to get the child tre, that is when we see great teaching. this is not an anti-union message, this is not a pro-union message, is a goat-teaching message. the unions, if it -- pro- tehing message to the unions, if it wanted to be paid -- they
3:44 pm
want teachers to be paid more, have to find ways to have the money freed up. guest: ok, there is the advertisement for that. i believe choice is our real driver of quality in america. i choose to drive fleet calthe i do, i choose to buy milk for my childr in the grory store. those are independent choices, and to the extent that tries to improve quality and drive down cost, -- that choice can improve quality and drive down cost, it is free enterprise in america. if we could more and more vote with our feet, children would more and more go to schools that would be good for them. the simples thing we can do today is have into-district twice, allow children to go to any school -- inter-district oice, allow children to go any
3:45 pm
school in their district. host: bradford is a teacher in cincinnati, ohi what grade you teach? caller: sophomore. host: what subject? caller: history. what can we do do practically change the culture of the school from the assessment culture we have on the date is to the more character, culture baseis that t sounds like you are speaking about in your book? i was working on this type idea in my school. guest: let's take your question apart slightly and let's not have it be in opposition. let's not say that we have -- this is similar twhat we are talking about earlier. we want to have a culture of character first so that we can then harness the character of the children to drive great
3:46 pm
outcomes forhem. let's be really clear about this. it is the human person, the human heart, our individual character that is the greatest engine of creativity and productivity in the world. it is in harnessing human potential that we get extraordinary outcomes, whatever those be to that is true in the workplace and it is true in school. what i am not saying, and what your question might suggest, is that we have to leave the culture of testing the height and move it to a culture of character, because it sounds like we might be moving behind measurable attainment. i am not saying that. i am saying to put that focus on the children fir one thing you need to do is get assessments right. you probably need to have a greater focus on what e child knows today in order to then really get the child to the test
3:47 pm
score you want. i hope that at least the balance i am trying to present is clear. it is when you focus on the good of the child and you get everybody working in that direction, the test scores will rise. host: atlanta, georgia. frank is a parent. caller: am i on? host: you are, you are on the air. caller: your first call from fort lauderdale -- i grew up and went to school in fort lauderdale. i still in the state and trying to duplicate the experience i had -- i am still to the state trying to duplicate the experience i had witmy own children to the library open until 6:00 at night. and the students were empowered by the teachers. the teachers were more like family than anything else. we did not want to disappoint them.
3:48 pm
guest: nice. it just so many good operations there. all of us think that we're experts -- so many good observations there. all of us think we're experts on school because we all went to school, and i'd like your point because there is truth to that. to the degree that we up positive for formation, that is the degree we can give a positive reinforcement in our life. there are over 1000 sools in the united states, so i'm a bit of an advocate of this myself. i like to point on family that you make, frank, and it is when children feel like their school is more like a family and they have the comfort level, again, the point i've been making, they take risks and do difficult things, whether it be in sports, music or academics. but the point you are really making is that went teachers teach other like family, but children see that.
3:49 pm
the children respond to that. they become team players themselves in the classroom. you also get a school that earns the right to extend itself into the home. it is when teachers be if my family and the students feel like they are part of a cohesive part of school and that families want to be part of the school. host: on your ce comments -- guest: yes. host: why not? guest: it was the point i was making earlier. if there is something we can do in this country quickly in order to inspire, and courage, put the heat on, it would be to have a
3:50 pm
choice. you are right. most of america, we don't have scored twice the sad reality is that -- in most of america, we don't have a school choice. the sad reality is that we are segregated in most of america. we have to pack up and move our house to go to a school, and most americans don't have that opportunity. host: barry is another teacher and pennsylvania. what. are you in, what grade you teach? caller: elementary, i teach fourth grade. i am a product of catholic schools. i taught there before moving to public school. i heard the author mentioned private schools, but i did not hear specifically catholic schools. i'm curious, considering the culture of character and the thing else -- and everything
3:51 pm
else -- i'm wondering what the comparisons were there. guest: tremendous question, and thank you for it. i, too, and a product of catholic schools, here in washington, d.c. there were hundreds and hundreds of schools that could have appeared in this book. just a quick side now. -- side note. one of the most extraordinary stories of education today is a catholic school network headquartered out of chicago, illinois, 24 high schools across the country, were children, largely low-income, largely latino, go to school a four days a week, and then one day a week ago to a drop in corporate america. -- and one day a week go to a job in corporate america.
3:52 pm
financially sustainable catholic schools, and the credible experience where children to learn from adults and in the workplace. let's get back to your question. catholic schools in the country to focus on character first. you are right about that. in the inner city, where 430- plus years the catholic -- church as catholicfor 30-plus years -- for 30-plus years the catholic church as subsidize education, and now it is in the inner city, 80% of the children who go to catholic schools are non-catholics. those milies are choosing to send children to those schools beuse they want the culture of character worst. that is an important lesson of our people to know. -- the what the culture of character first. that is an important lesson for people to the tragedy is that we
3:53 pm
have catholic schools closing. out and we have more schools like that where they have a culture of character first and watched the great outcomes that come? host: we have some of the students were talking about as insurance at c-span -- interns at c-span. guest: a great experience for them, i'm sure. host: "how do wexpect students to become educated if we expect them to fill out abcd on tests?" "would you be in favor of a national test and national
74 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive TV News Test Collection Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on