>> what one issue do you want to be remembered for? you still have a little more time. you have 20 more seconds. >> i will say it again. creating jobs and diversifying the economy. dorothy, who is with me tonight, we want our five children to stay here. i have 2 in college. they will be getting out soon. we want to make sure they stay here. you have to have those jobs in the future. >> mr. cuccinelli. more platitudes -- >> more platitudes. no plan. he has made clear he does not like my plan. saying the words education and research, that is all great. those are goals. those are platitudes, what they are not plants. i like education. i like puppies.

i do not bring a puppy home if i do not have a plan for dealing with that puppy. he is all puppy and no plans. that is the way this has gone. look at his jobs promises from green tech. he promised 5000 jobs. in 2010, 2000 union jobs in virginia from green tech. then 900 jobs in the. i the time he left -- 900 jobs in mississippi the. >> thank you. we go to chris with a question from someone in the commonwealth. >> what will you do to address child poverty and preschool readiness given that current governor's decision not to apply for money for preschool readiness?

>> we should not be giving up money that is due us from the federal government. my government likes to attack the federal government. i want to work with the federal government to bring those dollars in. i always talk about what we need to do in early childhood development. it is absolutely critical. when a child is born, between birth and three years old, 80% of the brain has been developed. let's not start and end early age picking winners and losers an early age picking winners and losers. that will be one of my top priorities as governor. it is important to build the workforce development of the future. it will be one of my biggest initiatives when i am elected governor. i will apply for that federal funding.

i do not want to see us giving away our virginia federal dollars. >> thank you. >> we have a plan as part of our education program to provide for parents who are eligible for vouchers at the pre-k level so parents can waste their children where they can do the best job in development. the most important thing for any poor family is employment. it comes back to so many things that grow out of that. ronald reagan said the best social welfare program in the world is a job. and he is still right. my italian grandfather did not have a sixth-grade education. he was proud to work to support his family. there are so many people in virginia judge us -- that just want the opportunity and the dignity of work. as we fight off the washington regulation, that is when it is

appropriate to fight washington. that hurts the poor first and worst. i will be a governor for the war and all virginians. >> thank you, mr. cuccinelli. dr. bob with a question for ken cuccinelli. >> student debt averages over 25 thousand dollars per graduate, an all-time high. -- 25,000 dollars per graduate, an all-time high. will you increase funding for state in just -- state institutions or make state institutions semi-private or more independent? >> my greatest concern with higher education is affordability. many of our universities do a good job providing financial aid for those at the lower end of the economic scale. as we have seen with the numbers and you have cited some of them but a class families are

getting squeezed. we are committed to providing with ap credit, 10,000 degrees with some s.t.e.m. programs. and using online teaching. the biggest university in virginia is liberty university because of their 92,000 online students. it is not 100% of the classroom experience, but it is cost- effective. our public universities need to catch up with that. it is a way to share resources effectively across virginia. you mentioned the semiprivate approach. the washington post people -- wrote two articles about my opponent when he got donations about rich out-of-state uva alumni who wanted to go the semi private approach.

two days later, his website changed and the plan changed. when the washington post got the e-mails, they saw the two were related. >> state funding is obviously the most important thing we can do. i want to promote more state funding for our higher education institutions. it is important that our children have that opportunity and it is not so expensive and prohibitive that they cannot go. i talked about more that we can do on financial aid. it is important that so many of our virginia students be able to send their students to higher education. i met with the state council on higher education. they told me i would have to put $50 million more in the budget just -- $ 15 million more dollars in the budget -- $15 million more dollars into the budget.

we talked about efficiencies. we can bring some more efficiencies to save money. it is important that we do that. that is what we need to do to provide for all of our children. when my opponent proposes a $1.4 billion tax cut, it will come out of education. he soon the university of virginia, costing them nearly $600,000. >> time. your thoughts on semi private or financially independent state universities.

>> i am sorry. i am not understanding your question. >> clarify your view on making virginia's diversities more financially independent. >> i understand. i do not support that. we want to see better financial support. from the state government, that would come from a growing economy. kerry keeps using the word efficiently -- efficiency. you have to know how something works before you can make it efficient. i am the only candidate with on- the-job training. i have been a state senator and read the bills that came to me in my committees. i have done my homework as attorney general. at the beginning of this year when my opponent was asked about who was in the cabinet, he did not know. the virginia pilot ran that on the front page. you have to know the basics before you can make things more efficient.

i also support grants to virginia citizens to go to private virginia universities so they can stay here in virginia. we can make college more affordable for every family. >> thank you, mr. cuccinelli. >> some colleges have increased school security. what is your opinion of arming teachers and administrators who have been trained in hiring firearms? how can you effectively deal with the mental health issues that underlie these problems? >> this is a serious issue. the commonwealth should help. there is also federal money. i do not believe we should be arming our teachers and our professors.

there are programs we can take advantage of that would allow us to put security officers in our schools. it is critical. we are here at virginia tech and the horrific tragedy that occurred. i went out and visited a memorial today. i looked at a headstone of a young man and it said happy birthday. this would have been your 30th birthday. we need to do everything we possibly can to make sure our communities are safe. my opponent likes to say i got an f from the nra. i do not care what grade i got from the nra. i do not want to see another new town, aurora, virginia tech. there are things we can do. mental illness. investing more in that. there is a big piece of the medicaid expansion money that

will help with until illness. someone who has a mental illness probably should not going -- should not be going to jail. there are people who should not buy weapons. you do not know that unless you have universal background checks. >> time. >> thank you for the question. there are a lot of issues wrapped up in your question. i co-chaired the task force after the connecticut tragedy. none of us want to see this again. i agree with terry on that point. how do we make them as unlikely as possible. the most important thing we can do is be much more aggressive in addressing mental health needs across our society. it is nearly impossible to find the problem before it happens.

we can find people suffering from mental illness and help them. we have a lot of work we need to do with children and adults. i have proposed where that money can come from to expand the resources. as attorney general, when we got the largest health care fraud resolution in the history of the state, the first place we put the money we obtained from that case was in training law enforcement to be prepared to deal with people suffering from mental illness. it keeps officers safer. it keeps people suffering from mental illness safer. it gets them out of the criminal justice system and into the care they need. that is where we need to go as a society. >> i will go back to my earlier point.

this is a real difference in the race. i support universal background checks. my opponent does not. this is a fundamental difference in this race. 90% of americans today support universal background checks. the idea that an individual can go to a gun show without any back round check to check if there is a mental illness, has this individual been charged with domestic abuse? this is a simple process. i have gone through it and read it takes 5-10 minutes to go through a background -- i have gone through it and it takes 5- 10 minutes to go through a background check. i am standing on the stage at virginia tech where we experienced one of the most terrific events with a gun in american history.

it is time we stand up. >> time. thank you to both of you. we go to chris. this question comes from one of you in the audience today. chris, your question. this goes to mr. cuccinelli first. >> this comes from jenny and our audience. she says, as a recent graduate with a high gpa, i am still struggling to find a career. what will you do to help recent graduates? >> the most important thing we can do is to get the economy going faster. when you asked me earlier what is my number one priority, this is it. the people hit the hardest is are those -- are those coming into the labor market. when companies are not hiring, they keep what they have got and they do not add more. i would also point out that obamacare has been terrible for hiring. it is destroying the opportunities for millions of

americans because small businesses, medium-sized businesses do not know how much your next employee is going to cost them. my opponent did not think obamacare went far enough. he wanted to go to the full- blown single-payer. this is what obamacare is doing to the economy. small businesses are having to lay people off or throw them off of their health insurance. you do not have the new people coming into the labor market. >> mr. mcauliffe, what would you do to help recent graduates? >> i have called for doubling their research and development tax credit. he needs to do a better job of taking our great research from our universities and taking them out to market. it is an to do that. we cannot do that unless we have an effective transportation system. we should become the global

leader in cybersecurity. lots of investment and loss of jobs can be the aided. nanotechnology -- lots of investment and lots of jobs can be created. we have to bring folks together. you cannot do that unless virginia is viewed as being open and welcoming. women will not move here when can when ken cuccinelli want to make the pill it legal and they are attacking gay virginians. >> we are coming up on the and of the hour and we will go to a one minute posing statement from each of our candidates. we began with mr. cuccinelli. you are first. >> you heard my vision for virginia and terry's divisive attacks.

terry fought for his hardest and pals, like supporting obamacare. he did not think it went far enough. can you imagine? now he wants to expand obamacare right here in virginia. if you want to reject obamacare and terry mcauliffe's failed big government approach, you have your chance on november 5. terry also wants to raise your taxes $1700 to pay -- terry also wants to raise your taxes $1700 to pay for his promises. with your support on november 5, i will keep fighting for you. terry never told us his plans for virginia, just his platitudes. without mentioning me, tell us one detailed land and how you will pay for it.

>> i want to thank everyone for being here tonight. i want to thank virginia tech for hosting us. i would like to thank my wife for being here tonight. virginia had another candidate for governor who came form -- came from a business background. he was attacked for not having richmond experience. he went on to save our aaa bond rating. he brought people together both democrats and republicans, and build a strong record of forking for virginia. his name is mark warner. mark warner is out campaigning for me every day. we face huge challenges in virginia with sequestration. we need that same kind of governor again, someone who will bring people together and focus on the economy and not on a diverse is -- divisive

ideological virginia. i want to move virginia forward and i would appreciate your vote on november 5. >> it is hard to believe that our has already passed. he got to a lot of good topics. we want to thank both of you for taking time and for being here. [applause] my thanks as well to the live audience. we also want to thank virginia tech for cohosting and cosponsoring this debate and allowing it to be brought to you. thank you for being here and all of the viewers who tweeted on facebook and wrote. we hope you had some of your questions answered tonight. good night.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] texas senatorwith ted cruz. you can watch that live at 8:00 eastern time. tonight, some congressional profile interviews. and washington state republican will be here. those conversations will air back-to-back at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. we also covered an appearance by gene sperling. he talked to a group called business forward. we will have his complete remarks free tonight, but here is a preview. have thef you do not big bargain, even if you have a small deal, those deals could

have permanent loophole closers. and permanent mandatory savings. they could help our permanent long-term fiscal situation. it will allow more room right that will betments important to growth in the short term an important to our competitiveness in the long- term. it will be a very positive thing if we use this moment to push forward a program of, pro-jobs policy. we need to look at the components and make sure that they make sense. whether they make sense as a pro-growth fiscal policy that will be good for the middle class. good for economic security. for ari -- our long-term competitiveness. it is an important reminder as we go forward.

>> i saw firsthand the tragedies that occur. i witnessed the horrors of child sex trafficking. >> we become accustomed to being accolade it. this allows us to adapt to when traffickers move at multiple times. >> when we hear the term child

sex trafficking, most americans think that it only happens in other countries. or four children are brought here to be sold in large cities. american kids are trafficked in small towns. if people are not aware of it, they are not looking work. >> on c-span 3, in a country deeply divided, how did lincoln resolve the political and moral dilemmas that resulted from slavery?

just hours after the japanese attack on pearl harbor and before her husband addressed the nation, owner roosevelt was on the radio. >> good evening ladies and gentlemen. i'm speaking to you at a serious moment in our history. congress is meeting with the president. the state department and army and navy officials have been of the president all afternoon. occurred at attack a time when japan's airships bombed our citizens in the philippines. they sunk one of our transports on its way to hawaii. tomorrow morning, members of congress will be ready for action. in the meantime, we the people are ready and prepared. for months now we have had the knowledge that something of this kind might happen. it has been hanging over our heads.

it seemed impossible to believe and impossible to grasp. was only onere thing that was important, preparation to meet an enemy, no matter where he's dropped. -- no matter where he struck. we know what we have to face. we know that we are ready to face it. program on elena roosevelt at our website. >> nbc's p williams took part in a panel discussion.

occurred at the national press club in washington dc. their conversation was about one hour 25 minutes. >> i am here to welcome you today to today's per gram on --hnology and it has grown into one of the country's leading media law at the groups. set ofa gala on the saturday night live in york city. rooftops.barbecues on we had one of our founding of the store a copy pentagon papers in his freezer.

departmentstice curiosity about it. cited inad our briefs u.s. supreme court opinions. we have gone on road trips around the country to teach seminars about free press and free speech. at the never had a panel national press club. we're fixing that today. onh our first ever panel supreme court technology and transparency. we have, as they say at the saturday night live studio, we have a great show for you today on technology and transparency in the supreme court. .e have judges and journalists

we have academics. we have supreme court litigators. as our moderator and musical guest, we have a longtime veteran of the supreme court, a reporter. the head of the reporters' committee. thank you for coming and joining .s in this new chapter without further ado, i will turn it over to tony. [applause] >> thank you, bruce. my name is tony mauro. i would like to welcome you to our discussion. hostld like to thank our for making this happen. in addition to being on this

years,ee for close to 30 i have been covering the supreme court for 33 years. this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. this is what is special about the discussion this morning. for years and decades, if you raise the issue of access to the supreme court, there was only one thing to talk about. the persistent refusal to allow broadcast coverage of its proceedings. that issue is still with us unfortunately. it will be front and center in our discussion this morning for sure. with the growth of the digital age and unstoppable momentum towards transparency from all and intrusions all the time. the cameras in the court is no longer the only thing to talk about. there is audio of many oral arguments. in many courts it is streamed live, but not in the supreme

court. arguments are delayed until they are of no use to the news media. there are rare and unpredictable exceptions. the decisions of the corridor even further delayed. just this week, opinion announcements were posted online from the term that ended last june.

>> it does make available the petitions filed with the court or most other filings except briefs on the merits. there is no pacer for the supreme court. a press pool follows the president wherever he goes and the public is alerted whenever a president is ill. for supreme court justices for news of whereabouts and health it's a rare hit and miss depending on how little information the justices want to release. in the related area of ethics and accountability, other public officials are held to explicit

standards but not the supreme court. the public is left in the dark about the decisions the justices make or don't about perceived conflicts of interests or other ethical concerns. i could go on these issues seem to be popping up more and more these days in relation to the supreme court. but let's get to the discussion. we have a terrific panel i'll introduce each one briefly. first kenneth starr, president as in the president of university and judge as former u.s. court of appeals for the d. c. circuit. in this town, judge is probably the one that sticks so that's what i'll call him. next we have chief justice maureen o'connor of the ohio supreme court. so glad to have her with us.

she's a native of d.c. and has been on the court for the ohio court for 10 years serving as chief justice since 2010. her court is an innovatetor in terms of access and technology. you can get the audio of oral arts -- arguments on itune. next is neal katyal. just last week he argued five cases which bring him to the total of 22 cases argued in his career. next is pete williams of nbc news who has been covering the supreme court and justice department for 20 years. i think that's right. as other networks cut back on their coverage, pete is a television correspondent we see most often with the supreme court. when a major decision comes down or mass shootings strikes, pete is the one to turn to for

coverage. finally we have alan morrison. he's the former head of public citizen litigation group where he argued 20 cases before the supreme court. and relevant to today's discussion, alan is a lawyer who in 2004 who had the temerity it urge justice scalia to recuse a case involved vice president cheney in the duck hunting trip. not surprising, scalia refused to recuse himself. before the speakers begin, i want to mention we going to very much encourage questions from the audience. we're going to do that in written form and there are pens and cards on your seats. please keep those in mind as discussions goes go on and write down questions and receive them and when the time is right, i'll

ask as many as i can. with that, judge starr. >> thank you. so thankful that the committee has decided to hold an event at the national press club. it's a privilege to be here with my friends and colleagues on the panel. i'm going to be auto biographically for a moment. i'm in favor of greater transparency and the supreme court. that's the principle that i like to speak to. i am and have been for now a couple decades in favor of cameras in the court. i was trained as a young cop by chief justice warren berger. he was a great protector of traditions while at the same time seeking to reform change the court's procedure in a

number of ways. he loved to share with the law clerks as we came in that he was in favor of technology. so much so that he decided when he became chief justice in 1969, there should be a photocopier in the court. that was a great reform because law clerks would say we had to do what called flimsies to prepare memos. there were certain memos for all the justices especially the i.f.p.'s. it was 1869. it was a bit of a version to changing procedures and methodologies. there was not so much about cameras in the court.

my pifny when he was privileged to argue unsuccessfully the case. in litigation we had two categories, victories and developments. this was a very significant development. the constitutionality of the flag protection act is 1989. i did my best but i was one vote short. we weren't surprised at that result in the sg's office. at the conclusion of that argument, i said hello to one of the columnist who's kind of a figure. james jake kilpatrick. he indicated he will be writing. they didn't cover the court, every now and then would show up. opinion piece that he wrote richmond times dispatch was that

every american should have seen that argument. it's not that i was so good. i clearly wasn't. my worthy opponent was brilliant. he was absolutely great appellate lawyer. but it was not the advocates. it was the entire process and especially the justices engagement through their questions some times reflections. it was a very poignant argument. john paul stevens many categorized unabashed liberal voted in favorite of the government. that's when i changed my mind after i read his column that every american should have seen that argument. i knew how poignant at the time it was. especially when the greatest generation was with us. how can you not protect the flag

of the united states. i have have been a proponent for a long time, i've been very, at the same time, sensationive to the tradition that's part of its greatness, traditions can be very good and they can be very sound. there should be a reason for departing from tradition. there is a powerful reason to change and to reform. that is what justice sandra day o'connor called. she opposes cameras in the court. i greatly respect the contrary view but i profoundly disagree. in connection with her effort to respond what she called the collapse of civic education in the united states. i'm very thankful that every university has been called on by the justice to be one of the places where we are very engaged with the community and local school systems. but the point i'm making, here are thoughtful justice who are

concerned that an apocalyptic term is heard. think of how wonderful it would be for those school children who may be get into the argument. there are no more than 400 seats for the public. on those trips to washington d.c., that's one of the things -- you have tonight the -- to go to the supreme court. the principle response as i understand it, other than this is the way we've already done it and this is our tradition. which at the end of the day in the 21st century is not a persuasive argument. what is behind now the reason for carrying on the tradition. there are numbers, five or six.

the concern that the chief justice whom i had the greatest respect, had the concern of grand standing. the response to that is experience is great teacher. it was -- that's true in procedure. what is the experience and what we now know and what we'll hear from the chief justice about ohio's experience. if you start chronicalling, i have not done this, the experiences of those court that's do have cameras in the court. not only talking about appellate court. let's talk about the highest court in the jurisdiction. that's all i'm talking about. i'm not talking about o.j. simpson. that's a huge different set of issues. we're talking about the very highest court in the land. what we see is person after person, judge after judge, advocate after advocate saying it will be a good thing.

it will be a very good thing. that there is no evidence of grand standing saved from a comment from i know from chief justice beverly of supreme court of canada. she said 20 years the canadian supreme court has had oral arguments there's been one issue of grand standing. that happens more in the united states supreme court once every 20 years. leave that aside. in her colloquy with justice ruth ginsburg, how did you handle that. the advocates will tell you you don't win any points by being a grand stander. the justices themselves, i think, people will say, well, there's grand standing that goes on. will it get any worse. it will get any worse on the bench because of this. i will close with this.

i have argued in supreme courts where there are cameras. they are utterly uninintrusive. when i argue, controversially the same-sex marriage case, there's bedlum outside. but there's decorum inside. that 2.5 hour of the california supreme court, there were no histrionics. nothing other than the government working in a very effective way. when you look at what the state supreme court have experienced including in my nay -- native state of texas. the texas supreme court will be characterized by a lot of folks

around the country. in texas it's a conservative court. chief justice wallace jefferson, proudly with his colleagues said it is time for us to move into the 21st century. there is now live telecasting. i spoke with a justice just yesterday to confirm have anything happened lately. not a single nasty episode. the sense of public education has increased tremendously. these materials are now being used in classrooms and so forth. if we care, as i think everyone does in america, each of the justices do about civic education in the united states, the cost are modest to none. and the benefits are legion and powerful. so there's time for that tradition to come to an end. >> of course the chief justice roberts said oral arguments are

not for education. they are for us. meaning the justices. i guess that will be his response. >> that should be closed to the public. >> chief justice o'connor? >> thank you very much for the invitation to be here and be on this esteemed panel. i'm very honored to do so. i've had 10 years of experience with cameras in the courtroom at the highest level of supreme court of ohio. i have to concur that grand standing is nonexistent as response to having cameras in a courtroom. the cameras are so unon trucive. the public don't realize this they are being filmed. we have more than 200 seats in our courtroom for the public to come in and -- be able to observe. they don't need a ticket. at times we've had over flow

rooms that because of technology, we have been able to accommodate those that show up and want to listen to one of our oral arguments or more and do so with ease at very little inconvenience to anyone involved. i understand as judge starr has mentioned, there's a difference of opinion on whether or not there should be cameras in the courtroom. i have to say addressing cameras in the courtroom for the united states supreme court i respectively disagree with their posture and their position on this. why is this important? one of the reason it's important because the public cares. the public wants to see cameras. they want to see what is happening in our courtrooms as they want to see what the transparency will provide with everyone blanch of -- branch of our government. that's extremely critical. the public had received information now in a way that is totally transformed and morphed

into instantaneous communication. there is no downside of having that kind of exposure to the oral arguments that are conducted. all 50 states supreme courts allow for cameras in the courtroom. there are certain restrictions in about 14 states with regard to access to the trial courts and there's a distinction in some instances between several access and access in criminal cases. again, that is a state by state determination to be made by the judiciary and over all what we're addressing here is the access to the united states supreme court. think back judge starr mentioned the flag burning cases. but in the last year, we've had monumental cases of tremendous public import being decided by the united states supreme court. we've had the affordable

healthcare act. how many people in this country will be impacted by that decision. we then fast forward to march of this year and we had the same-sex marriage issues. again monumental decisions that impact the quality of life for so many of our citizens and yet, what are we able to view with regards to those arguments. instead of seeing lawyering, superior advocacy and the interaction of the justices with those advocates and with one another to pull back the curtain and allow the american public to see a branch of government in operation deciding cases that will so significantly impact the lives of our citizens in the future of our children in this country. i think that alone is the reason

to have that sort of exposure. what's the flip side? what kind of exposure do we have to the united states supreme court? we have, in disrespect to the reporters in the room but, we have individuals filtering the information and often times they, themselves, have not been in the courtroom to observe what happens. the timeliness of the information is also, i should say the staleness of the information is also a problem getting that very important information to the public. to me as a lawyer, to me as a justice and to me as a citizen of this country, that's unacceptable. access to a very important branch of our government. public expectations are about how they acquire knowledge and understand the world, has

undergone a radical morphness. we need to keep up with the time. all institutions do. there's three reasons. one has been addressed, that is the grand standing. as i said in the 10 years that we have broadcast live our oral arguments in ohio, we've had many significant cases in the courtroom. we've never, i do say there was one instance where an attorney acknowledged this they were on camera and turned around said for the benefit of the audience i i would like to start by saying, -- that put a quick end to that. that was the only went i could -- incident i can think of in 10 plus years having oral arguments live. we had the benefits of having the arguments archived so they are teaching tool. they are teaching tools for both

the law schools and litigant and want how to improve their skill. it is an absolutely wonderful opportunity to do that. we have a process in the court, our court in ohio, where archive the oral argument, but we have the briefsline. so the underpinnings of the case are accessible to the public and to anybody who would like to view them. we have the oral arguments it when our opinions come out those of course are available online as well. it's from start to finish, we are totally tyranny -- transparent with our cases. second is the public won't understand what they're watching. they won't understand the process. to me that's somewhat elitist view of our operation as judges

and justices. without cameras, the united states supreme court is missing out on a huge opportunity to foster greater public understanding of our judicial branch. let's help the public understand instead of keep them in the dark about the operation of the highest appellate court in the jurisdiction. our public is charged with the responsibility of electing public officials it charged with the responsibility of following the law. charged with the responsibility of being good citizens. and yet, we hide from them the operation of our highest -- one of our highest court in our judicial branch. that does not comport with their civic responsibilities. americans deserve the opportunity to witness our government in action and not before, as i said, to use the filter of media in order to access their government.

transparency is another -- i get the strong impression that the justices don't want to personally be that transparent, that recognizable, have that kind of celebrity attached to their persona in what they do. i say that the american public has the right to know who their justices are and be able to recognize their justices just as they do their city councilmembers, mayors and governors, united states senators, their congress people and state legislators and governors. we are all public servants. whether you're chief justice of united states supreme court, chief justice of the ohio supreme court or a member of our legislative branch or executive branch, we are holding these honor positions for no reason other than to serve the public. we are institutions that serve

the public and we should be transparent to the public. i feel very strongly about doing that. i think that the more transparency your government has, the greater opportunity we have for understanding and hopefully accommodation and acceptance. because we are a diverse nation. there are no two ways about that. recent washington activity has emphasized that the decisions come from the supreme court are dealing with cases and topics that are so polarizing that if we continue to have this veil of secrecy about how the judiciary does their job and the exposure of the actual underpinnings of these decisions, i think it does not bode well for the level of confidence that our public should have in the workings of

our judicial branch of government. i'm very much in favor of having cameras. i think that the arguments much more heavily weighted in the direction of putting cameras in the courtroom. having exposure and accessibility then continuing this 19th century mode of how we dispense justice in this country. thank you. >> i will situate my remarks between tony and judge starr's. tony listed grievances about the court and starr said coverage is the right way to go. this is my first time of appearing on panel. it's a real privilege because when i was there, i learned just how great a job you did. may be the public should learn more about that too. in any event, let me start by saying, i think the supreme

court, there is something really majestic to celebrate about this. every time i go in there to argue a case or watch a case, i feel like its a temple of truth. you are seeing nine of our smartest people, top lawyers, top jurist arguing one another in a reasoned, powerful way. it is truly inspiring to watch. that's true, not just in the oral arguments but in the written decisions as well. which of course are more transparent than the other branches. whenever they make a decision, they are writing down their reasons for it. they're arguing with one another vehemently down to the point of footnote 42, one opinion responding to footnote 19 and the other. you already have already, a sense of transparency in the supreme court that you don't actually have in the other branches. i remember my last day at the

justice department with the day the arizona finance case was handed down, the chief justice began his opinion striking down the arizona campaign theme. justice bader giving her powerful answer to the terrific opinion. this back and forth among them was so wonderful to watch. i share the sentiment of the panel that i wish that more americans could see it. it's a pity that americans don't get to see it. particularly in an area when the other branches don't work well. we had a shutdown in congress for 16 days. they have something really to teach us. it is surprising that congress approval ratings since 2005 have never gone above 40%.

the supreme court approval ratings never gone below 40%. that leave some to think the solution is let's order the supreme court to have cameras in the courtroom. i guess i'd issue a cautionary note about that. i can't presume to tell the justices what to do. i take it, they believe their situation is different than the state supreme court experience. either because of the kind of cases that come before them or frankly, just their own personalities. for that reason, they have raised some concerns. the concerns i don't think are the grand standing the litigants, they are genuinely are concerned some of them will play to the crowd. that may be an idiosyncratic decision. everyone saying we're really worried about this.

the system is working pretty well. one thing i i can tell you i know something about is litigating before the court. i stood up and gave my 18th argument last week. it's a pretty nerve wrecking experience. i remember when i did my first argument, which is a very big one and the court announced they were going to have audio release right -- literally as the argument concluded, i was arguing my case against the solicitor general. i was worried my friends and enemies everyone will listen to that. it will be played on john stewart and this and that. that is something to worry about. it's true even for experience advocates that you get nervous when you're up there. the idea that you're going to have televised. i do think it's going to impact things. does that mean that we shouldn't have camera? i don't think so, if i could

wave maiwand and convince them to do so, the unbelievable cost are there. they are tremendous. they are undeniable. with these nine, they might come to a different conclusion. my final to say is, the good news here, i think this is generational. .....

>> this is one place where the court has access to, or our result to produce a result is developing. getting with cases that settle the presidential election in 2000, the court started to release oral arguments within an hour after the argument ended. in the terms that followed, the similarly,hings putting it out shortly after the arguments were over that same day. two years ago there was a change. you have heard a little, but let me go into more detail. the court. doing that. it said it would not put us in a position deciding which were the high-profile cases, which

merited that treatment, so would post the audio of each week's arguments on friday, which allowed the court to say it was increasing public access to the court. at the same time, it drained them of any news value. it has kept that policy with a few exceptions. one was the arguments over obamacare, and the other was the last term argument over the voting rights act. that ought to give you some idea about how the justices feel about allowing television coverage. it is clear it will not happen anytime soon, although there is a pilot project on civil trials in the federal district courts, and they will not change the audio policy either, even though many of the federal appellate courts now regularly post the audio of their argument sessions. in washington, you can go on the court of appeals website, district of columbia, and you can hear the oral argument audio cases.at week's some justices say they worry

that soundbites of oral arguments would be taken out of context and could be misleading. other justices have said if the supreme court accepts cameras, then that will force the lower courts into accepting them, too. others have said they are wary about any changes at all in the institution, because they simply do not know how cameras would affect the supreme court's functioning. you talk about a possible generational shift. we watched with interest sonja sotomayor talking about this issue during her confirmation hearing, and she sounded favorably inclined. she said she has volunteered as a judge to allow cameras in her court rooms, and she said the expenses were positive. if she were confirmed, she suggested she would express that future her colleagues in conversations as a subject came up. she appears to have changed her mind. [laughter] there's little doubt allowing public access to oral armament would deepen understanding of

the court, and i say the same thing during several cases each term. if this argument is fascinating, i wish people could see it for themselves, and no doubt that c- would- hello, c-span -- televise their articles in entirety, and the other cable that works would show extended excerpts. justice scalia is the most outspoken. he says if it was allowed, most people would never watch the entire one-our argument and would instead rely on snippets on the evening news. -meister myself, i can tell you that that is undoubtedly true. but it is hard to see how that is a reason to keep cameras out of the court. after all, reports on oral arguments that appear next , theyg in the newspapers are just going to have snippets, two. quotations -- that is the print equivalent of a snippet.

they are newspapers, and the ap seldom runs the entire transcript of an oral argument. thank you very much. [laughter] that would bes broadcast on the news programs would actually be more vivid, that is to say, more faithful to the ritual of what was said in the court. perhaps that is why justice scalia objects, but it seems to me an odd argument against cameras to say that the snippets be more truly representatives of what happened during the oral arguments and that is why we should not allow them. we have long grown accustomed to what justice scalia calls vocabulary,e video if you will. they started. a century ago in the movie newsreels, and we have seen for decades in television coverage of's presidential speeches, whose cupboards -- news conferences. justices understand what a snippet is just as they understand what a quotation is.

justice breyer talked about coverage earlier this year when he talked about a court budget, and this was illuminating. he said that he has become convinced that it might influence not that lawyers for grandstanding, but the way the members of the court, including himself, i conduct in cells during oral arguments. permit me to quote a snippet of what he said that in his testimony. here's what he said. me and say,e to become, you think it will not affect her questioning. they say the first time you see on primetime television somebody taking a picture of you and using it in a way that you think is completely unfair and this report, in order to character turn -- caricature what you're trying to do because they do not believe the site you are coming from, the next day you will watch carefully what you will say. --t is what is were in the that is what is worrying me."

not want to be hassled and the line of starbucks. now i think, and i am serious about this, that they fear being made fun of by john stewart on the daily show. >> i agree with everything said, -- realisteal missed and incrementalist. how about radio? how about radio starting with the decisions that they read from the bench, which cannot possibly involve an element of grandstanding, since the justices have prepared what they are going to say in advance. it would also enable people to sit in their offices and not have to dredge up -- trudge up thehe supreme court when decisions come down. they already have audio instantaneously, which goes into the lawyers'lounge.

all they have to do is hook it up to either the internet or a radio station and there we have all got it. and then having tried that, they could go on to hear every oral argument on the same way. second, let me talk about recusal, and let me make a suggestion. not that the congress passed laws requiring statements of reasons, although i would support that. i suggest something rather simple. i suggest what we used to call in the boy scouts a buddy system, and when somebody has suggested that a justice recused him or herself, that you have a partner -- pete and i would be together, and you would agree with me that every time somebody suggested you have a recusal you would be recused, you come talk to me, before you tell anybody what your answer is that i promise to do the same to you here it would be better if you were ideologically on the other side so there would be no

strategy about these step off this case so we get a 4-4 tie. if the justices did that, there would be a lot more feeling that this was not individual decisions, that it was somehow electively made, -- collectively make, and the idea that you talked about somebody you were selected, have to work with everyday, would have a limiting issue on the issue of recusal. the other point i want to make andifferent from before him on a different subject. i have a very troubled in the last couple of months about all this talk about justice i ginsburg stepping aside and this is the good for the country. and all people think that the democrats will not control the presidency, and, therefore, to keep the majority were keep the votes the way they are but she should step aside. i think what justice ginsburg

does is run business, and i would not purport to tell her what to do or what not to do, we areis unseemly having this discussion. the reason we are having this discussion is the justices have life tenure. they can stay as long as they want, and we know that the practice is one of strategic retirement. several years ago i was privileged to be one of the co-- which talkedbook, about and subway system for having term limits for supreme court justices, and acted by statute, under which they would have 18-year terms, so every president would get two appointees, and there would be no strategic retirement. the justices would become senior justices. they would be paid in full. and, by the way, if there were any recusal is, which there will probably not be very many, you would have a supreme court justice ready to stand in for

them. >> let me talk about the opinion handout announcement. when the court has a decision, whoever wrote the majority opinion summarizes the decision. we have asked, why can't we get the audio of that, because as you all know, if you have ever heard of, it is usually pretty good, and sometimes quite vivid, quite alive, pretty juicy. -- i'mhave been told struggling how we have been informed -- it ain't going to happen for this reason -- what they say is when there is a decision, a published opinion of the court, they have seen that, they go back and forth, they all know what it is going to say, but if there is a 6-3 decision, the other five justices do not really know how the writer of themidst your itty -- of majority opinion will summarize it. sometimes members of the court

say as they sit there to the announcement, they say, that is not what i signed on to. [laughter] what we have been told is that is not going to happen, simply because it would require too ity on the court and would obligate things. just a little further insight. >> just to be clear, you do not have to trudge up to the supreme court every day to find out whether your case has been decided, and particularly in the modern era, the written opinion comes on the moment that it is being handed down. and so-- >> except for the health care case when it was an hour and a half later. i think. sorry, i did not mean to interrupt. >> generally, that is how it happens. recusalmentioned the issue, and i want to get your

in ohio, chief justice o'connor, and if you have some thoughts on recusal's and either the buddy system or announcing reasons or not announcing reasons for recusal. >> i was interested in what you said about the buddy system. that was the first time i heard that mentioned as a potential way to deal with that, or an idea. in ohio, on the supreme court, eachked to recused, justice can decide for themselves whether or not they will recuse and just put a written statement on the docket, i recuse, or after consideration, i have decided not to recuse from this case. that is all there is to it. there's no explanation or reason given one way or the other. there is a movement with the to have a model role for

recusal for the judiciary, and it is a work in progress. chief justice is involved in a process of examining what a model rule would look like. i am on the subcommittee, chairing the subcommittee, to take a look at that, and that is a work in progress. what was put out cordially by resolutions, and neither one was acceptable to the conference of the chief justices. we're working on that as we speak. i think it is important to realize that we have 50 different jurisdictions of state court judiciaries in the country, and each state operates a little bit differently for the judiciary. some judges, justices are elected, some are appointed. there are appointed for

different terms. some have retention elections. some have appointments. if you are a judge in vermont, you do not have to get off the bench until 90. there's a different variety, and i am always hesitant with the one-size-fits-all type of a rule, and that is what we are examining with the conference of the chief justices in conjunction with people who are not justices, members from the academic community, as well as the lower courts, trying to decide what would be the ideal model rule to put out there to preserve the individuality and to be very realistic with the various systems that are in place for the employment of new judiciary in all 50 states. a theme that has run through the conversation thus far, and that is these overarching values of transparency and democratic society and accountability and with respect refusals, there are

frequent reasons for justices stepping aside. one is truly unavoidable, and that is the prior service, and so justice kagan has in my judgment appropriately stepped aside when a matter was before her office, the office of the solicitor general. there might come a point when there is an attenuation, but let's leave those exceptions to the role aside. but something extraordinary is or more thanustice one justice, but typically it is one, recuses herself or himself from the court, and that is the ability of the court to function. it is designed to operate as an on-numbered court, nine justices, and every member of the course should participate in every case. the extreme case occurred when clark resigned from the court so his son -- so

he would not have to face the issue when his son was becoming the attorney general of the united states. a noble act, but it demonstrates a roughly the first point. the second is one that i really do think that the justices should wrestle with, and embark thatcourse of conduct eliminates this entirely, and that is recruiting because of financial interests. if one is going to become a justice of the supreme court, i think there is a deal. it is an implicit deal. part of the bargain is you will so order your for initial affairs -- your financial affairs so you can do your duty. there may come times and never talk about one justice because of the death in the family, inheritance, there may be a process, but i would hope that justices would move to a system, since they are not subject to that code of judicial contact.

the judicial conference of the united states has no authority over the supreme court of the united states. or, heavention forbid, congress getting into the situation and saying we contemplate that you are going to decide every one of these cases, unless you have a kagan type of issue. what are you going to do, whether in confirmation or in the budget, conversation, but that is an instrumentalist question. no justice should step aside because of financial interests. he or she should i best -- aslves as probably as probably as possible i would hinder them from doing their jobs. >> congress passed a law a few years ago that enables all judges to divest themselves without adverse tax consequences. this was a law applied in 1980 to the people coming to the

executive branch, and it applies to the judiciary, and the number of the justices and judges have done that. they have to roll over there investors into a conflict-free account, and a tax-free transaction, so that if she's -- that excuse may have motivated some people. the other question is what are you doing with your children who are practicing law, and the justices have come to an understanding that, and have a policy on it, and everybody is comfortable because so many of them have so many different relatives around that it seems to work tolerably well. >> that seems true, but congress also passed another law and 92 before which made -- which eliminated the old rule which was in order to recuse you had to have substantial financial interest. now if even one chair forces a recusal. it seems to be problematic, and it would be wonderful if the justices could divest. i agree with the judge entirely

about that. i think congress should bear some responsibility for this, and there is a real cost, not just in terms of what judge starr talked about, when a justice recuses and you do not have a full, but hearing the these bigalso that sophisticated law firms and entities will fight to try to get one justice or another recuse or strategize from the this isfigure out -- extremely unseemly. it is a very problematic thing. and i think congress could change some of the roles and eliminate some of it. >> that statute applies to justices, by the way. section 455. whatever the judicial conference can do, the statute does not apply, but they get the final word on it. >> before i opened it up to general questions, i wanted to ask each of you to answer one or

two questions. neil, you talk about the majesty judge starr,and, you talked about the uniqueness of the supreme court. and the justices, when asked about these issues, often would it in terms of a supreme court exceptionalism, that the court olitical,ly ap unelected, unlike any other branch or level of government. the justices say we have this unique court and we do not want to mess it up. i guess what i want to ask is whether or not that is relevant, the uniqueness of the supreme court is relevant in this regard in terms of whether the a should be able to exempt themselves from the rules that apply to other courts or other justices.

>> i share the idea that the supreme court is exceptional, and let me give you a very vivid example. i very first supreme court case was a quantum ok's. i revisited someone to be alleged to be osama bin laden's driver. he won the case 5-3. the decision was 200 pages long. i did not have time to read it. i came out on the steps, and everybody said, what does it mean? mdan,ans this man, ha the person accused of being the worst of the worst and bring his case to the supreme court and win. in other countries, he would have been shot. but that is what the supreme court is about. the ability to do something like that against probably popular sentiment and so much else. i think we should be careful

when we start imposing solutions on them. i agree with certain personalities it makes sense to have amber's in there, but if they are -- to have cameras in there, but if they they are being compromised, their ability to ask questions, that is something we have to take seriously. and theniqueness exceptionalism of the supreme court, but what you just said is applicable to every judge in this country. every judge them at every court of law in this country is an exceptional experience for our citizens, to be able to go into a court, plead your case, and rely on the role of law. our adopting an acceptance of the rule of law makes our judicial branch of government exceptional, from the lowest court of to the very highest court. and there are rules and regulations and expectations of the public that apply to everybody's experience with the courts. although i understand the magnificence and the granger in

andeurope -- and the gr and the scope of the consequences of the decisions handed down by the u.s. supreme court, that same exceptionalism and nine medicines is -- should be present in every courtroom in this country. and our ability to access the courts is what is so vitally important. and viewing the courts in operation is accessed by our citizens to the courts. i know axis is usually spoken in terms -- access is spoken in terms of parties being able to redress. i take the view of access to be so much broader. premiseld accept the about the majesty of the court, the majesty of the law, more generally. the supreme court, as i wrote in my little book him a is in terms

of a constitutional democracy, it is first among equals. neil used the term in his first comments " awe-inspiring." i completely agree with that. but the conclusion that therefore there should not be --ated transparency, i greater transparency, i do not think false from the premise, and the right question is in a constitutional democracy, what is in the public interest? that is the focus. it seems to me that the kinds of concerns that have been lifted up, including people in his -- including pete williams' ewart'sr jon st appearance, growing next her layer of skin. you have a lot of tenure. you are a public figure. of you have the blessing

your compensation. it cannot be reduced. you have a life appointment. if a reform proposal is not adopted, you can serve until you reach the age of 92, if you live that long. no one will force you to step down. so how about, you are giving something, how about you are serving the public interest? many of you, and i do not mean to be pejorative here, choose to write books about and when you write books, you choose to go on a book tour. some of you are some of the leading shows on television. you must view that as part of the public education process, so you have already crossed that that flowsnsularity, from the exceptionalism and the majesty and the awe.

with all due respect, you're not the oracle of delphi telling us what the gods mean. you are a very privileged person with this extraordinary exceptional opportunity, and a conversation, it is in the public interest as opposed to the you are on concerns about that made will down to, if it is a snippet phobia, personal embarrassment? that is not a weighty response to all of the schoolchildren who will be denied the opportunity, their entire lifetime, of seeing the supreme court of the united states in action. the final thing i will say is, the court, and it used to be a lively area debate, looks to international law or international experience. i think everybody on the court, all nine would say it is ok to look at what the supreme court of canada has done. well, we have the jury is in. it works. it has worked for 20 years, all these concerns, are really quite

ephemeral and not well-founded. is canada, perhaps they more civil in canada, and perhaps that is so. let's go to the mother country. they are not visible in the house of commons. yet the new supreme court of united kingdom does have cameras in the courtroom. it is a newer experience, but thus far the reports are it works just fine. so those international experiences confirm what the chief justices said about the streets of of all 50 state -- experiences of all 50 state supreme courts. the idea of exceptionalism does not carry the conclusion that there should not be cameras and greater transparency. heard bylume of cases the state courts, 95% of the cases that are filed in this country are dealt with in the state courts. five percent in the federal courts. you minimize the number by the are heard by that

the supreme court. if it works in 95% of the other cases to have cameras, certainly the supreme court level but also to varyinglevels and extents, in both the trial courts and the appellate courts in this 95% of the cases, i think those numbers alone, those experiences alone offer legitimate of suffocation. i would never presume to believe that congress should order the supreme court to do this. i am not advocating that one branch of government orders another branch of government to ,ake this kind of monumental altra change. i am not advocating to that. we need to realize that the supreme court itself has evolved from its original conception, and involved in both number and otherder, and so many progressive steps it has taken,

and this is just one more progressive step. >> justice o'connor commented that when she saw that moment when three men women -- three women came to the curtain and took their places on the supreme court, it was such a moving and magnificent moment -- wouldn't it be wonderful for us all to be able to see that, or the moving -- it was extraordinary what settingl stevens is aside and the outpouring of admiration for a great man. disagreements, jurisprudential he, and for histionally but remarkable service on the supreme court, we did not get to see that either. it is a shame. at least the ceremonial part, and maybe that is an incremental. you aren't a committal

us, let's have some of the ceremonies broadcast. >> one portion of justice kagan's swearing-in was broadcast. >> it was not in the court. >> it was in a conference room. >> they do not want to breach that wall. chief justice o'connor, you just said that the congress should not be telling the thisme court what to do on , and one of the questions from the audience is, how can congress help move towards were transparency in the supreme court? two other panelists think that congress -- do other panelists the that congress should play a role? >> i suppose there are two questions. the separation of powers questions and the enforcement question. separation of powers -- it was a situation not too long ago where presidents who, after all, our

social because there are only one of them, took the view that their papers were there and papers and that even though the taxpayers have paid for them, they pay for the president's salary when in office and all the supports that, that they belong to the present. congress stepped in through, through the result of richard nixon's impeachment, and said, no, those are not personal private papers of the president. they are the papers of the people. and they can be made public. that could be viewed as an infringement -- it was try to recall and for short, of the separation of powers. the congress telling the president what he could do. no, youeme court said, cannot do that, there are problems at the edges. i do not think there is a separation of powers constitutional problem with the court saying, as it said in the

recusal statute, that it applies to justices. the enforcement problem is a little harder, because of the justices do not want to put the cameras in there unless the president is going to send troops in their with the cameras in there had having cameras roll. they may be there. who knows what the response would be? i would hope it does not come to that. it seems hard to believe all of these arguments here are chewing the persuasive, in the life of the law may be experienced, but the logic is all on the side of having cameras in the courtroom, and it is hard to imagine what a pall of the american people would look like -- -- a poll of the american people would today -- would look like today. justice scalia said, my cursor is now, can i go into that home depot or heck edgers -- he

toolsr's to buy some without everybody knowing who i am? the notion that most of the justices are in any way not known to the public, if the public is paying any attention, is not the case and the more. besides, if that is a problem, they can focus the cameras come as they do in some state courts, on the advocates and not show anything but the back of the heads of the justices. iremember the first time argued a case, i cannot even find the camera, it was a place off to the side. toely, if i was going grandstand, that would've been a bad time to do it. >> legally and practically, i think the idea of congress mandating the cameras or something like that is a non- starter. it is not going to happen. it would never be enforced. the real question is what can you do short of that, and i think two things can be done. congress can pass resolutions that urge the court to do this

and can share their experience themselves being televised with the justices. they can have hearings to try to bring out all this information and all that. and in some -- and in senate confirmation hearings, they can push around nominees about what their views would be, which would be a helpful development. with respect -- the other thing that can be done is this -- this is a wonderful example of trying to get to the heart of the issue and educating, first, the public and then hopefully the court about the fact that the objections do not seem to be as strong as they think they are. they are the ones who will decide this based on their idiosyncratic put personalities and interaction among them all, and very hard questions will arise during what if eight want it? what if one does not? how should they go about making this decision? that is a hard set of questions. a great concept called notch.

-- nudge. congress does have a role of nudging. the fact that we have a transition from -- i think i can persuade my fellow justices no, i am noto, longer in favor, if that is a fair characters early -- characterization of justice kagan's position. , when you to happen have individual representatives coming forth who themselves were in the judiciary. from houston, who was a judge, and a well-known judge in houston and texas, now in the house of representatives, said this needs to happen. it is a matter of focus and --dership, and can grace congress can nudge.

i disagree that the heavens will congress passes a law. it is not a violation of the separation of powers. if it is a law, the supreme court would obey the law. richard nixon obey the law, and is the law of the united states, the idea that you have to send in the marshals -- not the marshals -- but send in the appropriate folks to affect justicethink, as marshall said, too extravagant to be maintained. the court will obey the law. hopefully, through nudging him a gentle nudging, and focusing on what is in the public interest, what we need in light of the collapse of civic education in the united states, in light of the transparency and accountability, why don't you do

it yourselves? aboutouple of questions the notion of -- this is again involving congress, whether the congress should adopt or require the supreme court to adopt a code of conduct. everyestioner put it as federal judge is subject to a code of conduct except nine. should the supreme court justices be subject to such a code? do not have that decision in the state courts. our state court judges are subject to the same code of conduct as lower court judges. rationaleure what the would be, except that -- and just let me also say that some of the complaints that have been leveled against our judges on

many levels, but particularly in the court, had been politically motivated. we are a state of elected members of the judiciary, so we are in a safer place having subjected ourselves to the disciplinary process and the code of judicial conduct and the rules that govern the judiciary. it may be that the political ramifications argued in support of the nine members of the u.s. supreme court not being subject because of the misuse of those codes or rules on occasion, or the potential for that to happen. another question about --and for chief justice o'connor, but generally, are there administrative erdmann's or

issues of maintaining -- administrative burdens or issues of maintaining security concerns about some of the access that is given on your website? i know security has been raised the u.s. supreme court justices, as well as a concern, i do not know if the issue of cost or administrative burdens is an issue for the u.s. supreme court. what has been your experience? >> i do not believe the costs would be attending to the limitation of a system, hardware, software, as an and. the maintenance would be prohibited. it is not within the ohio supreme court, and we have a very sophisticated system. when you say security, i am wondering if they mean hacking in some way that would change the very content of our

opinions, and i have to tell you that that would not happen. we're very secure in access in those sorts of details. the other security aspect would be what was alluded by justice scalia saying he could not go to the local hardware store. are you a recognizable face in your community or cross the that some ways you should be concerned about that? concerns about security go with anybody who is a public figure, and there are ways that those are dealt with. i know even now the justices of the united states supreme court, as well as members of the federal judiciary, having -- have extensive security operations with a guard to their public appearances, which is not what the s with state justice and members of the supreme courts of the various

states. technologically, i am not worried about security or breaches, and i am certainly not worried about the cost would be attended to do it. i would not need to reinvent the wheel. excellent technology in place to have this happen. , -- personalrity security, when you're out and about, i do not know if it would be any more of an issue than it their puttingn themselves out in the public eye through interviews and book tour's and everything else. it would probably not get much more attention. about the public perception of the court. pollsi think you said show that the court's approval

rating never goes below 40%, but it seems like there have been some polls were there has been a decline in public approval. do you think that the greater access would help or hurt the public approval rating of the court? there seems to be a feeling it is almost like a familiarity breeds contempt, that the more the public sees of the court, the less they will like it. struck me has always as a horrible argument against cameras. the idea that the public sees what is going on that they are not going to like it, so we should not allow them to see it strikes me as -- since they are not going to like it, that is why they should see it. i am not sure that is right. could -- ifhat if i i were able to talk to the justices, i would say i think legitimacy should go up.

you have a great story to tell, something that everyone should see. -- i can understand from their perspective, they think things are working pretty well him and all they can do is -- as stewards of this great institution. there is a feeling they can only mess it up. it is our duty to try to expand to them why it is not so, bring them all the empirical evidence to be mustered, but it is not an easy sell. advocate whoery appears before the court, at least more than once, would say that court works beautifully. the process is a very impressive process. with the decisions pending. [laughter] >> i do not have anything up there, so i can speak on the basis of 36 arguments and being up there for almost countless others. the court works brilliantly,,

and the process is a serious process. it has its homes of humor and lightness of touch. impressionget the that they justices are taking themselves with undue seriousness. it is very serious process, one that henry friendly described that is best for its quality, professional to professional work, you're not sitting there reading "green eggs and ham." [laughter] the poll question is, if the question is do you think the supreme court is doing a good job, you're likely to get an answer to pending on whether you agree with their dependents. if you asked them, are they serious about their work and are they conscious they are doing the best, even if you disagree with them, you'll get a higher premium rating. rating.r approveal

>> we appreciate the unanimity that exists on the court in the best part of its work, almost 50% of its decisions each year on the merits. they are unanimous, and if you take a supermajority, eight-one, 5-4 it is that 20 to 25 decisions, the question that would divide people on this panel, in the audience, so it is not surprising these my flag- burning example that people would have different interpretations of the first amendment. unfortunately, the gloss now is it is all political, and it is not. it is not at all. it is deeply philosophical, to be sure. different' philosophical lenses. they are professionals who agree on the process. they may not agree on ontitutional ethnology's --

constitutional methodologies. they write books about that. as aork of the court, court, is so deeply misunderstood by the american people that i happen to think that cameras at least will be a beneficial step forward. >> i would like to add one point to that. absolutely right, if there is a characterization of the court in terms of political characterization, and when the public disagrees with it, an opinion, it does not go past what the outcome is and they do not look to the display and that is -- discipline that is utilized to get to that. that is where i think the media comes in. stop characterizing supreme court justices as republican or democrat and stop doing that with other members of the judiciary, because -- >> we do not. we call them liberals and conservatives. [laughter] >> when you attach a political

label to a justice or a judge, which happened so often in the state courts, for a while we the the only republican, ohio supreme court. had aear, we have democrat one. that has been unfortunate for the journalists. i think it is not a responsible way to identify members of the judiciary, by attaching a political label to them. it does a disservice and adds to this confusion. >> at me say one thing about that, which is that in much of my practice as representing businesses, we have been talking about the american public should see this. american business immunity, the general counsel of big countries have these perceptions, the liberal justices against the conservatives who are 4s, when she is right, when most of the 0,siness cases are 9-

and if the business community could see the argument, it would change the dynamic. >> one more question -- should there be a supreme court press pool when the justices travel? >> when they take their exciting trips to take jack class -- to oberlin?lass at absolutely. everyone should eat that up. the press pool thing, the analogy is for president. for a long time in our nation's history, presidents went out, had dinner, and did fun raisers around town and no one was there. that all changed when president reagan shot, and now there is a regular press pool that travels with the present wherever he goes, around the town, around the nation from around the world. to have a pool cover all of the nine justices -- granted, they do not travel at the same time.

itnnot imagine that, a, would be logistically something that people will want to do, but secondly, i do not know how much of it would produce useful material. i would say simply no. >> i will take the trips to italy. [laughter] end, and ife must this program serves as a nudging tool, that is great, and i think it has been a great discussion. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] jordan us tonight for more of

our road to the white house 2016 coverage with texas senator ted cruz. he will speak at the annual il-1 republican party's reagan dinner. also tonight, a couple of profile interviews. we talked to joe manchin and representative rodgers. both the house and senate gavel in on monday at 2:00 eastern time. the house next week plans to debate two bills dealing with financial industry regulation. on would remove regulations on financial swaps. the other would mandate regulations on broker-dealer contact. the senate will debate the nomination of the national labor relations board general counsel. the candidate is a recess appointment to the board.

ruled the appointment was invalid. you can watch the house on c- span and the senate on c-span2. on, we generation goes have wrestled with morals and our society. [indiscernible] >> in the end i am trying to become a better person and create a better place for all of us to live. teenage are three upper-middle-class white boys, which i know is not quite striking for a lot of people, but what we wanted to do in the the baselineore political realities in the country by looking at what is happening for the boys who are essentially our avatars for traditional leaders in america. a lot of people come to the film about young leaders and they expect to see a multicultural

tapestry of what america looks like, so our country is really still run politically at least by upper middle class, relatively privileged white men. reacting to that is what i am trying to do. coming of age story in "follow the leader." at 8 p.m.sunday night eastern. sperling said today he even if you do not have the big grand argan, lawmakers should craft a deal that closes tax loopholes. he spoke and an event hosted by the group business forward. he spoke about the recent government shutdown and the debt ceiling debate saying he is worried about another threat of default would do permanent damage to the economy. his 50 minutes. -- this is 50 minutes.

>> good morning. thank you very much for coming. to business you new forward, we were created with the mission of aching it easier for business leaders across america to tell washington how to create jobs and accelerate our recovery. next to the help of the biggest companies in the world, we are active in the hundred cities. we have worked with thousands of business leaders and have briefed more than 400 different members of congress and officials. in -- tonored to work welcome gene sperling. he will discuss how budget negotiations can move forward and what is on the president cost economic agenda. to holde first person this post twice.

prior to assuming his current role, he served as the secretary to tim geithner. in the obama administration, he and economicusing assistance for veterans. during his years in the clinton white house he helped the geisha act the deficit reduction and championed the children's health insurance program, a tax credit, and the student loan program. between the clinton and obama workedtrations, he gene at the center for american progress and the council on foreign relations, focusing on a range of economic issues. he is the co-author of a book and the author of "the program at, progressive economic strategy." he attended the wharton business

school. michigan and of will rejoin his family in california at the end of this room here -- at the end of this year. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for having us here today. i want to thank jim doyle very much, not just for today but for all the leadership of is this forward, all the consultations, even the recent meeting with the small business advisory committee as we went in to this recent round of budget discussions. i want to thank you and business forward for the leadership that you have shown and the desire to look beyond your particular

situation to the larger economic issues that we face as a country and understand that affects all of us. really, i want to thank you. we are, asay that usual, going into another phase of the budget discussion. we are now going into a time where we will have a budget conference that will go until december 13. we will have the cr that goes january 17. atebt limit that is extended least into february. i think as always you will see different people go quickly into the weeds and details, which is not inappropriate. but it is important at these moments to step back and

remember why we care about these issues. sometimes here we start to think that the end goal of all of our public policy is to hit a particular metric, a particular metric them asue if those are the goals in and of themselves. it is important for us in policy to remember each of these tricks, -- metrics, however important, our means to larger goals. the larger goal of what we do wey the end goal of what do, is to have economic growth that allows us to live the vision of the united states as a country where there is a growing, secure, and inclusive middle class. that is not an obama or a romney or anybody's unique particular

vision. that is the vision of the creation of our country, to have an economy that was not a barbell economy, with a tiny group in the middle and a lot of well offle or some people, but to have more of a bell curve economy, or there is a large number of americans can be in the middle class, can have the benefits of a middle-class life, the chance to have their children do as well or better than them. that is the fundamental -- that is one of the fundamental goals, the end goals. goal, that people in our country who work hard and take responsibility can work with the committee, raised their children with dignity, and retire with dignity. and, third, that we are a country where the accident of your birth is not overly determined -- does not overly determined the outcome of your life.

nobody more than me will get lost in the difficult issues of offsets and budget totals, etc., but it is very important for us to step back and remember that all of those measures have to be measured against whether it is fulfilling a strong, goal of inclusive middle class, being able to work or live, raise your children and retirement unity, in a country where everybody has a chance to rise. . .