going to be able to determine rule of law in a fashion that is faithful and loyal to the constitution in the statutes. in terms of collegiality, certainly when the bank feels there might be something -- when the bank feels there might be something to lose from vitriol, it is going to change the formulation of how people react to each other. it would change the calculus. as a result of that, if it will encroach on the collegiality of the environment you have been able to create all you can hope in that circumstance is that all of us recognize that and talk about it and that we make some effort which is idealistic but we

should make some effort to not permit that to affect what we do as judges. we need to remember that we are stewards and we will come and go out of this office but others will come after us and this is the branch and we should not be coloring the nature of how the branch operates th. >> some of the challenges to the obama health care plan, the media has played up the judges who have sided with republicans and judges who have upheld it. doesn't that create the public perception that politics does affect the outcome with judges? >> you mean the comments that people make? >> the comments that we read in the media. the reporting of the results,

based on whether the judges decide whether the case was to -- was appointed by a democrat or republican and whether they themselves are democrats or republicans. >> people say all sorts of foolish things. ultimately, what people say about this change is or affects reality. this would not have happened in california. there was an appointment that was quite collegial.

federal judges often languish for years in the senate having confirmation away. waived. by the time they get to the end of the four years, they will feel like they have got something to prove. fortunately, it has not been the case. i have had a number of colleagues who waited many years for their confirmation. i must say, they cannot unscathed and as good and fine and friendly and non-partisan as they can be.

we do things differently. especially on close cases. i am convinced that once the judges, at least the ones i have seen, once they get past this baptism of fire, when you put on the road and take that oath of office, you put all that behind you. ultimately, how we will be judged as an institution will depend not on what people say but will depend on how we act. anybody who takes a close look at the part of the judiciary where i m, in the federal court in the ninth circuit in the west, will see that you cannot

draw the kind of distinction. the republicans less democrat argument happens. whether that continues, it will have a lasting effect is a good question. you have to be quite strong to go through that process, to wait two, three, four years for your life to be in the balance. many people have law practices. you have clients who don't know whether they can entrust cases to you because you have been nominated to be a judge. it is a disruptive, personally

and professionally. if this continues, we will get judges who are affected by this. so far, the judges that have made it to the process have made it through unscathed. >> in california, with non- partisan confirmation elections, across the country, state courts have become political battlegrounds with huge amounts of campaign contributions. do you think it's possible to have a collegial court that is selected in partisan elections? >> that will be attacks of the judiciary. -- that will be a tact of the

judiciary. there was an out-of-state group that was unhappy with their unanimous ruling. on gay marriage. the same group as did the three supreme court judges. they have made a commitment and have tasted success and vowed to go after the other four in the next election. apart from what is happening in iowa, across the united states, we are reading about massive amounts of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars being poured into campaigns for supreme court and courts of review. this is having an effect, of course, it has to have some psychological affect on those who are incumbents, sitting justices, to see what is happening to their bench.

it is the test of collegiality when that successful candidate who is bankrolled by an interest group or interest group, makes for a suspicious foundation. it will challenge the collegiality. it is human nature that you will be concerned about that situation. you will be concerned because that person is likely a stranger. it is not someone who came up as a defense attorney who came to the trial court or appellate court or supreme court. you would wonder about the soundness of opinions. i think it would be unrealistic to say that does not cause great

consternation and challahs the collegiality of those courts. >> the process of judicial selection becomes more politicized. are we going to see greater demand for refusal of judges -- recusal of judges based on particular campaigns or what funds they received in the campaign? what will -- what effect will that have and collegiality? >> we don't have campaigns. i have never seen anybody be challenged who came from the legislature with activities of that sort before they were appointed. the one nice thing about being a

judge is that you never have to face the voters. it gives you a sense of independence that is hard to overestimate. california right now, they have a fine judiciary and we have not had much or any unfortunate events as we had in iowa. many of us are old enough to remember not so many years ago when the three justices in the california supreme court were defeated. that was something that at that time was thought to be unthinkable. and yet, three justices were

removed. this is not the time to rehash those events. it is like the elephant in the bathtub. when you have interests that are out of state and are not within your purview, that is something that is a serious threat. i admire my colleagues in the state courts for resisting what must be a crocodile in the road.

they have done a fine job of maintaining their independence. i hope this does not come to california. it is hard to say with any assurance that it won't. there are good people in the state and lawyers in particular who know to understand the importance of this and to help teach the rest of the electorate of the importance. >> we have a peculiar system of succession in the california supreme court. an appellate justice gets the term of his predecessor. it has resulted in many cases of judges having to stand for retention elections multiple times.

i think we owe chief justice george a debt of gratitude because he gave you a full term. we don't have the face the voters for 12 more years? >> a 12-year term. i have never had a 12-year term. i came in and had an eight-year term previously. in all honesty, when i knew that it did not have to stand for 2010 i would admit it because i was concerned that it was a big political year. if i could stay off the ballot in 2010, that would be wonderful. and then i found out that at am

on the ballot in 2010, it made a nervous october and november. >> why? >> i don't underestimate the power of mr. no. it was a big year and there had been concerns about people coming to the polls, the fact that there were many issues about incumbents which was reported as income but anchor and throwing guys out and not voting for anyone in. i receive mail afterwards that said things to that effect. they said they did not vote because they thought i was an incumbent. i was concerned about that. on november 3, i was relieved. >> judges with identifiable

names drew the lowest of those. that is all some voters see. were you concerned about that? >> i was concerned about that. i was concerned about that when i stood for retention election in 2006. did not help that my colleagues were telling me that historical ly judges with ethnic names and and i had the northern counties of california, my name went on the ballot in the northern counties. in 2006, my name drew the least amount of yes votes even though i traveled from the editor -- editorial board to editorial board to all the small counties

and get on the list of recommended yes votes on the fun sheet that people take to the polls. was a concern but i thought -- it was a concern but i thought with the names we had in the ballot like schwarzenegger and others, i would probably be a characteok. >> do you think diversity has enhanced collegiality or detracted from it? is it better to have more minorities and women on the appellate court? there have been a number of studies published on this. they suggest both ways. it may actually be a negative impact on collegiality. so many judges say that it

enhances the collegiality to have more diverse judges. >> it is difficult to said. i graduated in law school in 1975 and half my graduate class was wittman. not very -- was half of my graduating class were women. in law school, a good chunk of the class were women. in many places i have worked, there were a good number of women and a fair number of minorities. i would not feel comfortable on a court with all white guys. i would not know how to operate. when i say that, i mean me and

my colleagues my age. i cannot imagine any other way it could be. i fight with my male colleagues and i fight with my female colleagues and i kiss and make up with my male and female colleagues. i don't think sex or race difference are good points for the lack of collegiality. i think that is nonsense. every time i hear some of the old-time judges talk about the good old days when they used to go to lunch together, i think i was glad i was not a judge back then. [laughter] >> you work on the supreme court

that has a majority of women? >> yes. >> what is your impression? >> i do know how to work with old white guys. [laughter] my experience has been that diversity enhances collegiality for the simple reason that when you are the different person in the room and you are the new person in the room on the bench, i found that people take an interest. as a result of having discussions with them, it broadens our discussion. as they get to know me as a woman, for example, the man on the panel -- the men on the

panel asked what that the attorney was wearing. we have other discussions that i know they never have with their male colleagues. as a result, next time we have a meeting and i see something, i say to my male colleagues, is that what you did when you were an attorney? we have a give-and-take with my getting to learn about them and who they were and they have in a trust with me and asking me certain questions. i am filipinos' of a will ask me about food. -- i am a filipino so they asked me about food. they would not have this discourse without me there. as a result, when we had discussions about cases in the certain behavior comes up, i have a different filter than they have about what that behavior means for whether i

think it is heinous or it is a product of the environment. we will have that discussion about it. they may disagree and never change their opinion but at the same time, we have had that discussion. the next time it comes up, they will think that they had that discussion and they disagree but those are incremental steps we make together in looking at the changing behavior of society. diversity certainly brings that discussion into the conference room. in time, i think it makes for certainly a better discussion, a better case, and more collegiality. >> former governor pat brown was asked how he made appointments to the california supreme court. he said he called the chief justice and asked him who he should appoint. i doubt that the way his son

will operate. do you think sitting judges should influence the appointment of their colleagues on the court? >> i think a sitting justice has something to contribute if they know the candidate. i would think the governor might be interested in hearing that with all the other voices he is hearing about appointments to that position. the california process is well known. the judge is vetted and collegiality is a question in review for appellate and supreme court justices. it is important to ask only because judges sometimes know things about judges. it is something that should be considered. whether it rises to the level of influence by itself, i hope not.

i think that is too much authority, too much power for a sitting justice to influence the career of another candidate. i say that with caution. differed governors have used what the vetting committee is, the judicial selection advisory committee, to help filter candidates to the trial court or the appellate court. a bank that is valuable, but i shudder to think that the folks who sit on those committees that includes judges have the ability to stop an applicant. i shudder to think that kind of power is in the hands of seven- eight people. i would hope that sitting justices can contribute to that decision, but i have a concern

about it widening to the level of influence. >> one of the unique things about the california system is that you chair the commission on judicial appointments. you vote on whether somebody can be seated as a colleague of your court. when don wright was chief justice, he voted against bill clark and had to sit with him on the court. what does that do to collegiality? >> i think that is a challenge. i hope it is an initial challenge. i hope that eventually you know yourself and you are secure enough to say that you are wrong. you could go to the person and the principled and say you

one to clear the air. to me, the sooner you clear the air and step up, the sooner it will be over and you could be on the road to recovery. you need to be a strong, secure person who knows himself or herself. >> is collegiality a criteria for federal appellate judges? i don't recall the word collegiality being mentioned in the hearings for justice sotomayor for justice kagan. is this just not regarded as an important characteristic for a judge? >> i think there were discussions.

i think it is one of the things that is considered. various white houses and i am thinking way back from both political parties, are always looking for judges and justices who will be able to influence the other justices on the court. that is very much on their minds, from what i have heard. is this somebody who can get along? i was lucky enough to clerk at the supreme court when just as brennan -- when justice brennan was on the court.

when you met him, he put his hand on your shoulder and you would feel like a million dollars. sometimes we take the justices out. our chambers took him out one time and he knew we had clerked for and had heard stories about the judge's we worked for. that was a man who could land that fifth of those. vote. he was plowing the vineyards. i love him. when i went for my confirmation hearings, he found me.

i have never seen him since the day that i finish clerking and i did not have any reason to think he would know me from adam. he found me in that room. he put his arm around my shoulder and said i would be ok. i guess i was. [laughter] maybe he knew what he was talking about. if you can get somebody like that -- the white house is forever looking for the brennan will carry whatever the white house version of law is. if it is not said out loud as perhaps in other places, i think it is foremost on the minds of

people and the white house -- in the white house. if you are collegial and you can't get along with your colleagues and bring them around, you can land that fifth vote for a particular position. it is importance in this election of judges in the federal court. you ask a question about whether we should be expressing our views or influencing the appointment of judges to our own courts. michaelson is a little different about doing that. i am not worried so much about

judges who hope you fail. about eight of my future colleagues on the court -- i could tell that they would not vote for my confirmation. it did not bother me. what bothers me more is the idea that a sitting judge or justice would talk to the president and that sets up a very bad relationship and expectation. there is a dependence that i think is a bad idea. it is counter to the idea of collegiality.

the most famous example is an historical fact, the reason justice blackmun was appointed to the supreme court was that warren burger, the chief justice, suggested his name to the white house. i think it set up a pore dynamic for the two of them to work together. perhaps the chief justice and expected more. he had to pull away and show he was his own man. ultimately, he did not work out well. i have been pleasantly surprised every time there is a nomination to my court, somebody i don't know, i am always fretful. as it turns out, i have been exceedingly lucky.

people who have been appointed have been wonderful. if you ask me who to appoint, i would never know. no comment on the situation in california. it is what it is. in the federal system, we don't get asked. so far, so good. >> to have the workloads -- duke heavy workloads and the do have a work load -- do heavy work gloves and the case loads of our a pellets get in the way out -- do have the work loads and

caseloads get in the way of collegiality? does that mean you have less time is available to be collegial and discuss the cases in the detail that you want to? do you have to rely more on staff. does the staff have to be collegial to get the work done? >> the growth in caseload does not cause, in my experience, a jurist to hurry. that means a delay on the back end in getting an opinion out. i don't think it affects collegiality in that way. of course, it can strained resources. it can strain clerks in the

chamber because it continues to grow on the backlog. i find that growing caseloads or unfilled vacancies, in the beginning at least, when everyone believes that we will step up and take a greater responsibility. , we realize we have a duty and will do more. this brings us together. now we have something collectively to complain about. i can talk to my judicial assistance and my attorney and central staff. we can complain together.

however, at some point, if there are too many recusals and people are not stepping up and you have to take a caseload and transfer it to another justice which has happened, that begins to affect collegiality. then we begin to feel that our team are not doing the best they can when they come to work. that means someone else has to pick up that part of the load. no one likes that. >> would you agree with that? >> pretty much, have not thought about it. we had this terrible tragedy in tucson. there is nothing good i can say

about it. immediately, i had e-mails and phone calls from all over the country. there were judges who had worked with judgeroll and i had judges from louisiana and nevada and they were willing to take 20 or 30 of his cases. they were willing to come and take over his caseload for a while. they ask what needed to be done. they stood ready to step in and help. there is something to the idea that adversity and lack of resources, up to a point, bring you together. when it comes to reliance on staff, i worry about that. we have gone a different way

from the state courts. we have a strong emphasis on chamber staff. some judges have permanent clerks. we have limited the ability to hire more than one. you can but they cannot get salaries that go up. the fact that we have a strong emphasis on law clerks has a tendency to keep us young. i can't get about 28 hours a day from my clerks. [laughter] >> are they sleeping in the office? [laughter] >> they are not sleeping but they are lacking an opinion. [laughter]

i think there is a limit to all of this. it would become far more stress. at the court of appeals, we are in a fabulous the situation. in arizona, they are in terrible straits. those judges are approaching the limits. when things get that bad, collegiality, tempers get very brittle. it can have an effect on judges who will start jostling with each other for resources. >> does lack of turnover of

justices, is that a sign of a court that is not collegial? >> i don't think rapid turnover of justices -- it is hard to say that that points to collegiality. as far as i know, is more about personal circumstances and how things change. if you need to go out into the private sector for financial reasons or health reasons, i don't think that is collegiality that affects the tenure of justice. the flip side is true. it is common knowledge that at the court of appeal and the supreme court, staff attorneys and judicial assistance who have been there for 30 years or 41 years tells you why lot about how the staff gets along and how

rhythm and hum those in the courts. on the other hand, the issues are so exciting and so interesting, you might be able to overlook the fact and deal with your colleagues so you can continue to do this unique work. the work is so compelling. even if we did not have a collegial court, i would stay for as long as i could. >> moreno came -- when justice moreno came on the court, he bowed to hire a new person every year but he gave that up. from time to time, this suggestion is made about not

having that annual turnover of clerks and getting fresh blood of thee stat offs justices. do you see a change? >> i don't see a change. i have heard that position and have talked with judges from other states that talked about the need for a fresh perspective. they talk about having rotating annual course because it gives you new ideas. when i was at the court in sacramento, our team was like having a law students because the law students brought to as judges and lawyers a fresh perspective on technology and a very -- and were very court would social media and what was happening and what resonated with most of the population.

there's a tremendous value in having the law students or young lawyers come in and out of your chambers. on the other hand, you would be in a constant. of training. as you train them, they leave that you are training again. i have never had an annual clark. i would be curious to hear how that works on the federal side. >> any advice? >> when i visit the second district for lunch every once in awhile, i always advise them to try getting a rotating clerk. there are institutional reasons.

i think it is good tore-train. it calls is youtubere-think some things -- a calls you -- it calls you to re-think things and mentor the next generation. i now have clerks who are college. i have a clerk who is a colleague in my court. he is a former clerk read once a clerk, always a clark. [laughter] he is on the d.c. circuit. i have a former clerk who is a past court judge. the mentoring process is important function we play. i think i could get much more work in one year out of one clarerk.

that is a limited time and we can endure just about anything. [laughter] i rely on my clerks. i don't tell them that. i find it a rejuvenating process. it is painful and i don't look forward to it. the year is over and the infidel forces are about to descend on my chair again. they come from your they don't teach any law at all. -- they come from schools likeyale where they don't teach in law at all. [laughter] there is something about the process of teaching that renewed the job for me.

it makes it a little bit different every year because of the chemistry. when i was in law school and it was that but -- it was not that long ago [laughter] -- i interviewed with chief justice wright and i interviewed with justice richardson and then i got a call from judge kennedy who was newly appointed in sacramento. i flew up and interviewed and he made me an offer on the spot. thank you but i have an application with judge risk -- just as richard said. that was -- with justice richardson. that was in san francisco and i

went back. at that time, i was a clerk with the ninth circuit. my co-clerk was from harvard. we had friends that the clerks and the federal system had colleagues and friends in the state system. my classmates were clerking for the court of appeals and so forth. that provided another area of intercourse. we knew what they were doing. we're not talking about cases,

obviously, but we were colleagues. we would have lunch with each other. that is completely gone now. permanent clerks are not lawyers. rotating clerks are law students, basically. i don't think there is that kind of intercourse of that is lost, too. >> does not just a loss to the court but it is a loss to the bar. i am active with the academy of appellate lawyers. i've always remarked on how the best appellate lawyers have former clerks and they don't have that input now into the appellate bar c strongadre of lawyers who had clerked experience. >> i was just sheer in my

experience. >> it is something to think about, thank you. >> i hope you come to visit and we can talk about these issues but we have judges including judge callahan who has both. it may be worth having this dialogue with some of your colleagues in the d.c. area. there could be a position of a permanent rotating clerk and that might not be a bad idea of. >>. >> i would feel proud of we brought that change about. here are some excellent questions from our audience.

in light of last week's events in arizona, how can members of the bench and bar play a constructive role in public dialogue? >> in terms of public dialogue, if you are referring to the tragedy in arizona, that had more to do with a mentally disturbed person who had a fixation. when i read it immediately in the paper the next day of this concern that it was partisanship vitriol, i thought this cannot be. people don't really believe this, certainly it was not investigated. in terms of how the public can

i think lawyers and the state bar, there is a component of your practice that should recognize that part of it has to do with some intercourse with the courts outside the court room. courts cannot often speak up for themselves. the court cannot explain but lawyers can. lawyers are the best advocates. they are the best communicators. if bar associations or the state bar or any organization that can come forward to help educate the public about what is happening in the court or exploiting what might be something coming out of the court, that would be helpful. just yesterday, i met with the bar leaders to talk about what

can be done over the $200 million budget reduction as proposed by the governor. that $200 million reduction, if it stands, will be borne by the brunt of that by the trial courts. that is where you practice. certainly, the large majority of attorneys practice in the trial court. the bar leaders are willing to step up and help us go to the governor or the legislature to talk about reducing the cuts. we know we have to take a hair cut but we have to determine how much. we want to keep the courts (d. open. other judges will be going to the capital. lawyers and the state bar and bar associations should also go there and say to keep the courts open. that is where we write to the wrongs.rs right the >> several weeks ago, we were

glued to our television watching the argument in the ninth circuit in the gay marriage case. do you think the presence of television cameras in the appellate courts will have a positive or negative influence on the level of collegiality of judges? >> we have been televising for 20 years or more. we were the first experiment which was in the very early 1990's. the federal courts elected two or three courts of appeals to experiment. we were there. the experiment was made permanent. it was abrogated in the trial

courts. we have had television. in the courtroom for 20 years and we have seen no effect, no- affecting collegiality. there are some judges who always vote no. those who get out voted are good sports about it and has no effect at all. i think it is very useful. the argument in the proposition 8 case and another argument earlier that was televised in the arizona statute, i think it is highly informative and educational and useful for the public.

this, after all, is an aspect of democracy. judges who are making decisions will have an affect on whether or not a vote of 20 million californians get counted were not counted. i will express no view at all but it seems to me that the public is entitled to see and be aware that the people making the decision are serious and well informed and are asking questions that go to the heart of the matter. anybody who watches arguments would have no doubt that that was exactly what was going on. whatever the outcome of the case, i would hope that those who are unhappy with the result will be more likely to accept howhaven't been inside on

the process operates. i think it is inevitable. in the long run, it is inevitable and i think it will have a positive effect on the collegial process. are the arguments in the supreme court televise? >> yes, they are. >> and many other state courts as well. i think it gives greater confidence in the courts. many people can say things about the court but there is something about seeing them operate. we have a lot to be proud of.

i think we should not hide. >> we have just about run out of time. i want to end with going back to judge harry edwards who says that the more judges assessed in terms of political decision making, the more likely this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. even if you are able to resist the temptations to conform to a false perception, the continued assessments of performance in political terms will promote a new reality. most people will come to believe that the judicial function is nothing more than a political enterprise. this would be ahorror to behold. do you think we are at the point of the whole of the that horror? is there a widespread public

perception that judges are just politicians in black robes? are at thebelieve we threshold but i can see how we might get into -- get sucked into the vortexes of it. i think that will happen if good people do nothing. it goes back to the question of what can lawyers do. lawyers can help combat that view when that view seems to be promulgated by the media. if they are giving that message and if it gets to the public, i think that is largely a factor of misinformation and not being informed. judges are trying to get out there and explain the role the best we can in terms of educating the public. that is where lawyers come in. that is where the bar

association's comment. this is where the decisions are rendered. ultimately, they are saying that your win is the result of politics. your good labor in court and your meritorious victory is not because of politics. >> amen. [laughter] >> you have a plane to catch. i am sorry we cannot get to all of these excellent questions. i want to thank both achieve judgekasinksky and the rest for making the time to join us for this event to honor the memory of a very collegial and wonderful role model as a judge, judge william ingram. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> "washington journal" is coming up. this afternoon, the leaders of the three major irish political parties made their final tv debate in dublin. the ira's general election is friday. we will have live coverage of the debate at 4:30 eastern. on television, on radio, and online -- cspan, bringing public affairs to you, created >> this morning on "washington journal"