there is dr. king preaching at emmanuel ame. every weekend, 48 hours of books and 48 hours of american history on c-span 2 and 3. this weekend, 48 hours of books on book tv on c-span2. it will be live from the fdr reading festival on saturday. you can get the full schedule on book tv.org. an american history tv on c-span3. go to www.c-span.org and look up american history tv and get the entire 48 hours of history schedule as well. thank you for joining us this morning on "the washington journal." ♪

♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ >> as the country continues to mourn the victims of the charleston, south carolina shooting, the governor of that state pledged the state will seek the death penalty against dylann roof. these are nine families struggling. we will absolutely want him to have the death penalty, he said this morning. the hill reporting that south carolina is one of the 31 states with the death penalty. the state could prosecute roof understate crimes, meaning state prosecutors have the option of seeking the death penalty in his case.

anytime there is a dramatic situation, people want something to blame, they always want something to go after a person filled with hate, and person that does not the fine south carolina. you can watch that statement from the president and the prayer vigil held yesterday by members of congress on the east front of the capital. that's all at www.c-span.org. also there, you can find it were of the emmanuel ame church. we explore the historical significance of that church. you can watch that in our video library at www.c-span.org. here's a look at what we are showing you today on c-span. the american conservative union hosting a panel discussion on the ongoing nuclear negotiations

between the p5 plus one coalition and iran. general michael flynn director of the defense intelligence agency from 2012-2014. we will have that life starting at 11:30 eastern. later, president obama will address the u.s. conference of mayors annual meeting. it will focus on the economic health of the city. see the president's remarks at 5:15 eastern right here on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday night at 8:00, ruth bader ginsburg on national issues like gay rights, race relations in america and the production of a new movie about her life and career. sunday night at 6:35, a profile interview with presidential candidate ted cruz. on book tv, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern, we are life for

the annual roosevelt reading festival. authors include christopher o'sullivan, harry hopkins sheila collins and molly manning. on sunday night at 9:00, the need of a sexual revolution in the middle east. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3 we are life from the gettysburg college civil war institute annual summer conference on the civil wars and an aftermath. -- end and aftermath. general grant and appomattox and at 11:00, abraham lincoln and the press. sunday morning, we continue live coverage beginning at equal and 30 with -- a: 30 with the consequences of the civil war.

a discussion about treason and loyalty during the civil war at 11:00 with william blair. get our complete schedule at www.c-span.org. >> that's the american constitution society hosting a discussion about whether the supreme court is to be reformed. -- needs to be reformed.

>> this program is being recorded by c-span. you may find it at any random our of the day or night for the next six years. before engineers are listing with panelists, i have to go to my -- one of which is to introduce myself. i teach at eel law school. i'm a member of the acs board. -- yale law school. i view our mission as helping to grow and sustain the next generation of progressive lawyers. i've been delighted to see how many students there are. that's why we are all here. we have a diverse panel. not everybody is necessarily on the same page and that is a good thing. cell phones must be turned off. done that.

ok. we will have about 20 minutes of q&a. starting in 20 minutes past five, there will be cards. the cards will be collected -- if audience members with to tweet about the session or their experience, the twitter handle -- the official hashtag -- we will take an outside the box response to our topic of whether the supreme court is a failure and why that is -- we mean structurally, we mean -- we

don't necessarily mean there are many things we can talk about -- the nomination process, the confirmation process, various other aspects of the way the justices collectively or individually approach their work. what i've done, rather than ask people to give us a set piece i'm going to throw out the question to our very distinct panelists, who i almost forgot to introduce. the question of just to name one thing that they think indicates whether or not the court is a failure. and what they would like to do about that and we will have a

discussion about that and then move on to the next person. the order in which they are going to speak is not the order in which they are sitting. on the far right, larry kramer. the former dean of stanford law school who now runs the hewlett foundation. to my left nelson from george mason law school. on the far left, the founding dean of the law school at uc irvine. to his right is elizabeth, the chief counsel of the constitution accountability center. justin driver on my immediate right from the university chicago.

is the supreme court a failure? what would you like to do about that? larry: i have a talk i do every are called why you should hate the supreme court. whether is a failure depends on how you define success. it has way too much power. the amount of power it's been given is insane. i wrote a whole book about it. there should be some balance -- there are provisions built into the constitution.

i will talk about two of those weekly. -- quickly. the lack of transparency about the weather report operates is shocking and extreme and ridiculous. that cuts across the board whether you're talking about their ability to take junkets without having to disclose them to anybody, the ability -- the lack of television coverage in the court, which they oppose because they don't want to many people to see what goes on and on and on. that would be one space. you could have a lot more transparency in how the court operates, which would change public perception and useful way without undermining the emotion of judicial independence. if you are going to have this

power -- i would not put myself on the court, either. if you are going to give people this kind of power, of all the important cases the court decides, the ones that make it in the core institution are the ones -- we used to put people on the court who had done things in life and had really spirits and real compass minerals. who had been senators or cabinet officials, who had response ability for making decisions and sing with the consequences were. with that comes with experience. they can bring that to bear in making those decisions when you have to make that last little bit.

as we make the supreme court more important, we have stripped away the ability to put anybody on the court was ever done anything like that. now, in order to get on the court, you have to have been nothing other than a legal expert. and have not done anything beyond that. the problem is, when the long runs out come executive what these people had to bring to bear -- they tend to fall back on ideology. that's what you see. the last justice who had a kind of experience to bring to bear on this would have been justice o'connor. you saw that in the way she decided cases. very distinctly. we need that kind of wisdom. it's really a cultural thing. what we don't need on the court are people who have only ever been technical lawyers and never

sat or done anything that caused controversy and instead have people with real experience in the world that the court is going to affect through those decisions. linda: one other metric for that is something i remember walter dillinger said back in his day when he was advising president clinton on potential nominations. to ask whether that potential nominee is would get into the new york times and what would it say. by that measure, ruth ginsburg would qualify. i'm not sure of anybody else. back to your point, you make to kinds of points -- two kinds of points. the transparency and an undertone of ethics.

who do we put on the court. those are two different points. maybe we can discuss them separately. on the transparency point, you make a couple different points. television is an old issue. one can debate for many years. you mentioned judicial ethics and junkets and things -- is that a problem? they do disclose their finances every other but -- like every other federal judge and hold themselves bound by the code of judicial ethics. the formal matter, the code does not apply to the justices even though they abide by it because who would judge the justices?

do others think these are problems that indicate that the court is falling short? larry: it's not so much that you point to any particular thing they do. it's more about the overall culture. the sense that we can do what we want. there was a -- when i take junket after junket, do i think about that -- does that affect how i decide? it's a pervasive culture and how the court operates a not so much a particular rule. linda: is there a corrupt culture at the court? larry: it's not corruption.

to a sense of independence. we don't have to worry about or care. it's all interconnected. you will not take away judicial supremacy, then what can you do? they have to be accountable to the world outside. that's what transparency rules are about. >> i don't think it's a cohort -- corrupt culture. rarely are there allegations of corruption. what larry says is right, the rules that apply to other federal judges should apply to supreme court justices. it's wrong to leave it to each justice to recuse himself or herself. nobody should be a judge for himself or herself. the procedures should be changed where others are making that decision. >> who would make the decision? >> we could create a panel of federal court appeals judges. i don't like the idea of it

being similar to other justices. it troubles me and we could have cases where justices are participating even though there are serious questions. it's just left to that justice to decide. related to that, justices are reluctant to recuse themselves because of the fear that it would leave the court a 4-4 split. one of the retired justices could come back incident -- and sit in. >> with you are idea of an outside body of some kind, how would that work? they would have to be vetted for every case? >> when there is a motion to recuse a justice, it should be submitted to somebody other than that justice. who that body is i'm less interested in.

i don't like the idea that a person is a judge of himself or herself. we've had instances where there are serious motions to recuse and the justices say i can be fair, i will stay here. the army spying case, there's a motion to recuse justice rehnquist because you participated the issue and he said i think i can be fair. there was the instance where justice scalia went hunting with the vice president and then participated in a case where the vice president was involved. he wrote an opinion saying i can be fair. it's much better when there is questions about whether a justice should be recused, to submit it to somebody other than that justice. >> ist's possible to put larry's comments side-by-side.

their ubiquitous figures at law school and c-span. i do find that distracting and difficult to explain. it seems like justices before they join the court are often attracted to the idea of televising the proceedings in the court. we need cameras in the courtroom, but why hasn't it happened? if they are going to go around and give talks, they should be seen in their capacity. i don't think it's because people would be embarrassed about the proceedings. the justices ask good questions. i don't think they have anything to fear by allowing cameras in the courtroom. if the argument is it's about justices or the lawyers plan to the galley that already

happens. i don't think that would introduce a new dynamic. it would be wise of the justices to let cameras in the courtroom. i don't think there is a serious argument against it. >> can anybody think of an argument against it? >> the argument the justices themselves make, they are concerned that there comes would be taken out of context. we already have the audio of their comments. that doesn't seem to happen that much. there's a middle ground between the arguments of having cameras in the court, to at least have live audio. we see a very high-profile case with public interest -- they release them earlier, but later that day. those of us were members of the bar no, they type in audio into the lawyers lounge. it seems technologically very easy for them to do that.

that would be a very good middle ground for the court to adopt if it wants to make itself more transparent. it's only to the good of the american people to be more engaged and more knowledgeable. linda: the current system is more problematic in that, from time to time, the court will acknowledge there is a major case and they will put out the same day audio. it puts the court in an odd position of identifying the important cases. let's assume every case is important. >> during the audio immediately after the argument with c-span putting still photographs of the justices there and watching it live two hours earlier. there is no distinction there. >> for having it put the john oliver dog reenactment. [laughter] is that better? the dogs are cute. >> i have a different view on

this. there he said one of the problems with the justices, they think they can do anything they want. to the extent that is true, it's a much worse line of corruption then recusal's or televising the proceedings. linda: and? you agree? >> yes. [laughter] >> now, you are supposed to say what he would do about it. >> i do have some ideas about that. i could give a little bit of background. i went and read all of the transcripts, the confirmation hearings of the last four justices. when they were asked what they thought the role of a judge was, i found what they answered. you cannot tell the difference between the answers -- if i read the answers, you could not tell which nominee.

they all said the exact same thing. apply the law to the facts, my personal views on anything have nothing to do with being a judge commits is a constrained narrow, legalistic role. the striking cases were president obama's nominees -- both were asked, the president said it's about your heart, and it's an important part of being a judge and that's why he picked you. they said i don't agree with that. they say and all the senators and all the senators seem to agree on both sides of the aisle that that is what a judge is supposed to do. it's not completely impossible that they could do that a lot more than they do now. i saw a report about a talk elena kagan gave at a law school. she said that there are two kinds of conferences.

one or the once about the big cases that make the front page of the new york times. those are very short. nobody discusses the case at all. they say how they will vote. if they have to explain or discuss the case, they would annoy each other, so what's the point of that? she says there are long conferences and those are about the cases that nobody except lawyers pay attention to. those often go on for a long time and they spend their time trying to figure out what the right legal answer is and they try to work it out. my proposal would be that congress do a few things to encourage more long conferences and fewer short conferences. i have larger proposals i worked up with my colleague. congress could require all

opinions -- that would include the concurrences. second, they could expand the jurisdiction of the court. right wingers going for the straight station -- jurisdiction stripping cases. there is a no longer used statutory mechanism by which courts of appeals can certify a question to the supreme court. issues they think the courts need more guidance on. the supreme court does not like being told which cases they are going to hear, so they never accept these certifications. my proposal would be for every search -- certification grant him a they have to take one certified case from a court of appeals.

that will give them more opportunity to try to deal with the issues the lower courts think they need guidance on. the third thing is to take away the law clerks. linda: that would break the hearts of half the people in this room. >> the law clerks have a pernicious influence. they serve a valuable function of doing research. that could be assigned to the office of the librarian. the results of the research would be shared with all the justices, not just little research projects and that -- and that a particular justice. -- aimed at a particular justice. requiring the justices to write down opinions would have some of the beneficial effects of term limits. [laughter] if they had to do their own job

you would have fewer justices who stayed in the saddle pass the time they could no longer about the horse. [applause] [laughter] my last suggestion is we bring back circuit writing. they were required to do circuit writing by congress. they finally managed to get rid of it. they could spend a little less time in the alps and more time sitting on the lower courts doing real judicial work. these are all marginal changes modest proposals. [laughter] they won't give us the perfect court. that would only happen if we appointed eight more justice thomas's. >> wonderful proposals. you and craig have an article

which i assigned to my students every spring. i wait until the end of the term. they have formed their own views. i think it's one of the favored assigned readings of the whole semester. >> i'm often good for a laugh. [laughter] linda: anonymous opinions. some of the european courts take a different approach. approach to the same problem. they don't allow dissenting opinions right? you could have anonymous opinions that was before the entire court without concurrent or dissenting opinions. you are both writing a new article about that? >> i would not do that. the european judicial culture is much different.

partly in disciplining the majority by presenting competing arguments. partly by informing the bar about disagreements within the court. what i think -- insisting on unanimity would necessarily do is curtail a lot of the showboating. many opinions nowadays are not written for lawyers, there written for "the new york times." there written for casebook editors and the result law to stuff that does not belong a judicial opinions in the opinions of many of the justices. that is nate -- not a partisan or ideological thing. >> the dissenting and anonymous

-- >> they would be anonymous. linda: i think having authored opinions is important because if we had anonymous opinions it would make the transparency problem that larry mentioned perhaps even more pronounced because it is important to be able to say justice scalia authored this opinion and it is in contrast with these three other opinions that justice scalia had authored or joined. i think that is an important part of sympathizing resident -- precedent and also allows and -- allowing the public to hold justices accountable if they deviate from precedent and from their own stated views before. i think that not being able to do that would be harmful. >> that brings us back to larry's initial -- how does the public old accountable? where is the accountability?

>> i am not saying that there necessarily very sensitive to public outcry, but i think if one does take seriously one's role as a jurist you want to be seen as principled rather than unprincipled. if you just sort of willy-nilly decided according to your particular preferences in the outcome of the case i think it would be as efficient outcry, as we have seen in cases where i think it is been important to hold justices. say you voted this way and you should vote this way when obamacare comes before you and if you don't maybe that is motivated by politics. as opposed to a principled statement of the law. >> i think ultimately the way will the spring court accountable is their presidential elections and senatorial elections. who we elect for president in 2016, especially if they are two terms, is likely to fill for

vacancies on the supreme court. there should be no issue in the 2016 residential election more important and supreme court justices. >> that statement which is sort of true is insane. something has gone seriously long with your democracy when the statement that made is what we really need worry about only to the president and our members of congress is who their input on the supreme court. this is not critical of you because i think it is an apt statement and a really clear statement of what the core problem is. i would absolutely get rid of the law clerks for exactly the reasons heather said. the court is acutely self-conscious of the limit of its own power. the problem is where we have said those limits is so far out there that they can go really far. the question is what other devices you can have two reproduce some semblance of

modesty with respect to their views as compared to the views of lots of people who disagree with them. as i say i do not think that is incorrect but it is just well what kind of democracy is that where the unaccountable grants rearward about. democracy is great except for things that are important. those things we have to get to the oligarchy. >> are we as a society better off having an institution like the supreme court largely insulated from direct elect real accountability to define the meeting of the precious rights of the constitution? i still believe we as a society are better off for that kind of institution. >> we have debated this a lot live in front of an audience. no, we are not better off than we did not have that into recently. what always amazes me is the progressive audiences should hold this view so much more strongly than the conservative

ones. across american history the court has been reactionary institution more often in way more ways than it ever was advance progress causes. >> when i think of the people who i represented through my career, criminal defendants, prisoners, homeless man before the supreme court, guantanamo detainees, it was really the quarter nothing. to say we will not have the courts -- home of the left him a state legislature adopted a lot to expand the right of criminal defendants? >> they are doing it all the time now. these things come in waves. -- the sort of delusional capture that a very brief and exceptional. of american history as if it over the whole of american history. all of the progressive reforms and criminal justice that took place in the run-up to the 50's and 60's, and there were quite a few them. we tend only focus on axis up in court david up paying attention to the parole reform.

what is happening now is in the face of a really radical conservative supreme court on criminal justice rights were group have actually defined at one area which we have some breakdown of polarization is on prison reform and criminal justice issues. you have to take the long view. yes, you are a lawyer during that time. is not that we have never had a a period. it is really hard to justify it is a progressive institution. i don't care one way or another. i actually believe in democracy. if i can go back to elizabeth's point. i think it has been a pernicious development that the justices have felt compelled to stick with their own personal precedence. it used to be that the precedence was with the court and often times, very

commonly once a court decided an issue, the justices who were in dissent simply accepted that precedent and the president of the court. in recent decades, we have seen an increase in this idea that each justice has to be consistent from case to case. linda: [indiscernible] larry: that's right, and that contributes to the court behaving less like a court. now it's true that i suppose if the opinions were anonymous people can change their positions for political reasons. but they can do that anyway. there has not been a justice in modern times that has not been able to hire a law clerk who who can distinguish away some precedent for that reason. >> i agree with nelson on the idea that justices should not fear changing their mind as much as they seem to. it seems to cause them great pain to say that they changed

my mind. and then they have to offer elaborate explanations as to why they voted to uphold the statute and vote to invalidate the statute in warren versus texas. i think it would be better if people got away from that and if they could explain as to what would have led them to change their mind, that would be advantageous. one question of accountability and how we hold them accountable. one of the way we hold them accountable is by having them signed her names to the opinions themselves. we can identify someone who writes their opinion in 1896, or someone who wrote an infamous opinion on behalf of the supreme court. i think it is helpful to be able to identify the particular justice that wrote that opinion and i am not , sure if it is actually possible to have anonymous opinions anymore given the sophistication of computer databases and certainly knowing who wrote the opinion. that gets

-- that takes us to the question of law clerks, right? it was not all that long ago when i was a law clerk, but i think law clerks are capable of adding to the institution and not so much the drafting of opinions but instead the voice of a younger , generation. many justices are in their 70's and 80's and many cases come before the court involving technological issues or issues of swirling social import. i think it is incredibly value for the justices to have someone in their chamber where they can talk to about these issues. >> it would be a funny and hilarious election process for people to bring that to bear. i've got a lot of students at stanford who i would say why don't you pick them can afford -- if you want to inform them about technology.

-- i probably should not have been a clerk either. linda: your mention of the age of the justices and the need or -- for the utility of ringing young voices into their chambers of course raises the whole topic of life tenure. so i think there's a lot to discuss about life tenure. i would just throw it out and see would like to get rid of it? >> i would. i favor 18 year non-renewable term limits for supreme court justice. in part it's life expectancy thankfully is a longer than it was in 1787. clarence thomas was 43 when confirmed for the court in 1991. i don't want to sound ideological, but elena kagan and john roberts were both 51 who confirmed. imagine that these -- both 50 when confirmed. imagine that these three justices stay until they are 90. the age of justice john paul stevens when he stepped down. that's too much power to exercise by a single person for too long a period of time. also

too much and now turns on the action of history when there is a vacancy. richard nixon had four vacancies in his first two years as president. jimmy carter had no vacancies in his four years as president. 18 year non-renewal terms would mean every president would have a vacancy every two years but i think that would be far better. linda: does anyone want to take that on? >> i don't have any objections to term limits. 18 might be too long, two might be better. [laughter] larry: you could have rotating circuit judges serving on the supreme court for two years at -- a piece. that might be better. >> i think i am opposed to term limits and here are arguments against them. one is the constitution of the united states. article three, section one, which talks about the tenure the justices have. assuming that we would be able to have a constitutional

amendment, which i think would be required to bring that about, which i think would be incredibly unlikely. but i think the cost of that for the supreme -- cost of the constant churn of supreme court justices. if there is turnover every two years, one could imagine the justices have an even greater incentive to have a strategic argument about whether to hear a case or not hear a case here that causes me some concern. some of our most distinguished justices served for more than 30 years. think about chief justice john marshall who wrote some rather important opinions that shape our constitutional universe well after he had been on the court for 18 years. i think that would also be true for oliver wendell holmes. i do -- before we start thinking about opposing these tenure requirements, i think we should be careful. one of the reasons is because i

think it incentivizes justices to think about what they are going to do after they leave the court. that seems like a mistake to me. earl warren who was the attorney general in california during the internment of the japanese-americans, and then he joins the supreme court and votes in ways that are very incompatible. i think he was able to vote the way he did was because it'd have to think about the next election or what was going to come after leaving the court. so that is to say that there is a real virtue on having people go to court and knowing that that is the last position they are ever going to hold in their professional lives. >> and they say would require a constitutional amendment. see the arguments on both sides. i think i would absolutely

favorite term limits. think of the justices who observed long time to in the past majority of them's don't do the best work and they are so out of sync with the rest of the country. the idea of a regular turnover is one of the ways in which you can preserve strong judicial independence. yet not worry about the court hearing too far away for the country is moving because the constant turnover. i'm not worried about -- i needed -- i do not think that justice would find -- have trouble finding a job after stepping up in the court. the confirmation process would have to change. but it obviously would if it was every two years. that would bring the stakes down for any appointment. linda: i think one answer to justin's concern is about with regular turnover, there wouldn't

be such an incentive to put the very young justices on the court, so i think we could make an argument that the framers view was that service on the supreme court would be kind of a capstone and not something that would come early in somebody's legal career. we want to talk a little bit more because may not be completely up on the various proposals of that are circulating. we will leave aside every two years, but looking at the 18 years, there is at least an argument that could be done without a constitutional amendment if somebody got life tenure on the supreme court but the actual active job of serving and working day-to-day justice would be for the nine most

junior people of the group. am i right about that? >> they say would require a constitutional amendment. i'm skeptical. i think it would require a constitutional amendment but here i may disagree with johnson -- justin about the constitutional -- when rick perry ran for president he proposed just what i have suggested, 18 nonrenewable terms. we have conservatives like rick perry in liberals like me but proposing this. maybe it becomes more plausible. i've spoken to a lot of audiences about this and it's interesting, on the rare occasion i get interrupted with applause, it's proposing 18 year non-renewable limits so i think it's -- it's -- [applause] i didn't do that on purpose last -- purpose. it would take time to build a support in order for it to turn into a constitutional amendment but i do not think it is an impossibility here. >> you mentioned you were

concerned about the confirmation process in the hearings into -- and i guess people that support the tier term is that would mean every president would get two nominees. so that they would avoid that kind of entrenchment problem that would devolve upon the lucky presidents or the unlucky president jimmy carter who had none. so would be an expectation of regularity that might lower the temperature and lower the stakes somewhat of the confirmation process. is that something that appeals to you? larry: well, lowering that appeals to me. i think the high -- whether this would be towards that and, i'm skeptical about it. the high temperatures that occur at supreme court confirmation

hearings since the hearing our something fairly do and will probably be contingent on the factory of a somewhat closely divided court. i think that is probably a more important factor in driving these things. >> i'm not sure it would lower the temperature at all because part of what raises the temperature is the fact that these very high profile, very important cases get to the court in the first place, which i think larry thinks is a bad thing in his initial premise. that would still happen even if we had the 18 year term. i think do went still have heated confirmation processes. i am not entirely sure what we get out of the term limits. i think a perfect example of counterpoint to the idea that justices who spend a long amount of time of the bench don't do

their best work or they don't feed into current society, our speaker tomorrow, justice ginsburg is the notorious big at -- the tories -- notorious rpg. people are getting tattoos of her on their arm. if we had term limits we've not have had some the best defense. a lot of these things come by, some of the accident of the cases come up with you have which justices. you have this thought experiment what would happen if we had the 18 year term limits. it comes to conclusion that ruled the way that -- roe v wade would've gone the other way. >> i think ginsburg probably said roby wade should not on the other with. i will say he i can state with some sense, the term i clerked the last term of chief justice burger, six of the justice or in -- were in their 80's.

i would tell you they were not all there. it was not the law clerk stepped in and we did that we wanted. we didn't. what we did is we would've it extrapolated from the past opinions where he felt they would want to go and it was not the same ability to say i don't ago one ago there. udc this. a lot of the elderly justices become exaggerated versions of the younger selves in their later years. again, decanted despite anecdote exactly but on balance think about the important things that you might want to construct their own lives. who do you want? the want to have the ability to get somebody at the very tail end of the lives of his abilities aren't questionably declining or people who are at the peak of their powers? i don't think there is any question that in most important things i would take the people of the bigger the powers. -- the peak of their powers. there is no reason this should be different. >> we will assess the spring

court. -- supreme court. one part of that has to be the lochner court. those 40 years were a terrible failure that did damage to people and society and in large part that was because the justices remained on the court for far too long. i think the advantage of the 18 year nonrenewable term limits is -- is saying we will have new justices coming on the court but still give 18 years, which is a long time to make a mark on the constitution. and still allows for a long learning curve here at >> [no audio] . >> is that year of clerking what gave you the idea that judicial supervision is a related -- overrated? >> absolutely. i worked for judge friendly the year before it was an amazing experience. he approached the job the way i was taught you were supposed to approach the job. i was angry the entire year.

some of it was the aging issues and had nothing to do the ideological stuff. it was the way they worked. it was suddenly sitting inside that bubble in realizing what an incredible bubble you are in. the complete unawareness of real consequences just in the phuket is were i thought i had some sense of what they were on and on and on. it's a be long time to the views i got to. nelson was year behind me and we had this argument at the time and i was a staunch defender of judicial supremacy of the time and he was not back then. it took a long time to come around and a lot of it was because of the kinds of arguments that erwin makes. i don't dismiss them blindly by any stretch. there is a really hard judgment to figure and there are benefits from having the unaccountability as part of the next and the question is how much do we need? we have gone way further than we

need to in my view. there is some notion that the court's anything but an 800 pound girl -- gorilla than what it is, and we do not need to be quite so afraid of doing things that would make them, get them better more information, make them more aware and so forth. >> how old was judge friendly when you clerked for him? how long could you been at the bench at that point? >> he was 82. he was just extraordinary, one of the smartest human beings that i have ever met. he had talked to people that clerked for him ahead of me in there was a decline but he was just at such a ridiculously high level. it must've been amazing to see him in his 40's or 50's. it would've been scary. >> judge from the decided not to go until his powers were gone. he decided not to stand according to his powers were completely gone. >> yeah. linda: i have a some of your

recent work, your view is that the court hasn't necessarily been counter majoritarian enough. that is the power the court has for the good. it shouldn't be shy about using. i want to give you little bit of a chance to talk about that. >> sure. i think that the supreme court has fallen down in vindicating the constitutional rights of marginalized citizens. some people would say that is because the supreme court is fundamentally incapable of indicating those rights. it is to fragile institution. when it comes to vindicating those rights, it makes it much worse. it can't come to the rescue of marginalized groups. we have this all the time with respect to roe v wade and furman

versus georgia, capital punishment. even brown, people would say there is a conception of the court coming to the rescue of racial minorities and is inaccurate. the nation on the whole was committed to racial egalitarianism. i think that oversimplifies brown, the north wasn't quite the land of racial enlightenment that we sometimes pretend, but even more important than that the supreme court does have the capacity to vindicate rights, even for very unpopular groups. if you think about kennedy v. louisiana from 2008, decision involving capital punishment for individuals who rape children, the court says that's unconstitutional, can't do it. if you poll that -- >> this is based on a mistaken fact, right? >> yes. if you polled people they would say it is not a great surprise that the majority of them with a yes, you can affect

-- inflict capital punishment on those sorts of people. if you think about texas versus johnson and the first amendment context, flagburning, if you poll that question more than 80% say of course you should have a login set but nevertheless the supreme court cap -- steps in and invalidates it. if the supreme court hasn't done a good enough job because it lacked the capacity to think and that is because of the personnel on the court. and their desires and their constitutional vision on not offering a capacious enough exception to afford people those rights here when one looks back on appointments from earl warren at the beginning of the modern supreme court in 1953 through justice alito's nomination in 2006, there were 23 justices confirmed to the supreme court

-- 17 of those justices were appointed by republicans, only six were appointed by democrats. of the 17, 10 of those appointments happened in a row. and so when one thinks about what the supreme court is capable of doing, i think it is mistaken to only look at sort of history and not think about what the supreme court could do going forward. i do really worry about people who are in law school today constantly hearing to not file a lawsuit and instead go to the public square, the statehouse because that is where change is made. there are some people for whom to the courthouse is the only option. the court has stepped in and successfully vindicated rights on at least some occasions and there is no reason to think that is not an incredibly powerful institution. citizens united is a perfect example. i understand he regret that power, but it is a powerful

institution. the question is what is that power going to be used for? linda: nelson, you mentioned when you were talking about the -- the court is not acting as a court. is it acting? is it a legislative -- what is the court if you had to identify it? larry: i guess a kind of monster. [laughter] larry: it really is two courts. i think what justice kagan said at this law school talk is that there are two courts, the political court and the legal court. and for a variety of reasons the legal court is smaller than i think it should be, and the political court is much bigger than i think it should be. maybe

if they had different justices of their more in accordance with my views of how to interpret the constitution i would feel differently. and would be fine to have a political court, that i don't think so. >> i strongly disagree. i think the assumption of that statement is such a thing as a law apart -- such a thing is value neutral judging, a law apart from value choices. it is just impossible. when you are dealing with the constitution and dealing with a document written in an open textual language. what is cruel and unusual punishment? what is due process of the law? there is no way to decide that without a value judgments. no rights are absolute. there was no protection for sensitive ideas, there is no balancing what we call them in all levels of scrutiny. the court has to decide if there is a compelling government interest such as diversity in the classroom. even with a rational basis review, the court will decide if there is legitimate government

interest. in the marriage cases, even if the court has to ask if there is a legitimate reason for gays and lesbians from being able to marry and the answer is obviously there is no legitimate government reason. but still -- [applause] >> my point is that all of these are legal questions. all of them require a value choice. there is no way of having value neutral treasuring. it is a mistake to say there is two courts, one political and one legal. they are all legal and they all involve value choices. >> their social science research that indicates the public understands that. although there is a political culture that forces judicial nominees to say, as nelson said, my job apply the laws to the

fax, the public knows that is not true and they are ok with that. you can hold two thoughts. in a way the public seems to want judicial nominees to say that. let's assume, or else they would not be required to say it. the public will understands that judging is a value inflicted task. i have not even given you enough chance. >> i do not know that the public is necessarily ok with the court acting like just another political entity. >> no, that is not what i was saying. >> i think there was an understanding that the justices have thoughts and experiences and so forth, and i think maybe getting an increased diversity of those experiences, we are talking about justice o'connor as the last justice with state legislative experience.

maybe getting a more diverse group. i think that the idea of the court as justin mentioned, as the protector of rights, is something we should not overlook. the idea that you can achieve things in the court that you cannot through the political process is incredibly important. while it is true that most of the states did not have bands on interracial marriage, there was still a hard-core group who would not have done this without the court stepping in. i think that is important to note that even if the court is not necessarily leading on these things -- and in the marriage equality cases they are not leaving -- but certainly there are cases that will not just states that will not recognize these constitutional rights to equality. >> i think all of this is completely fair.

what is bizarre is the impossibility to have any kind of nuance in this debate. i mean the debate we are having in society at large. on the other hand, there is a big difference in the relative mix and when you take a case and how you decided taste on that because there are also legal consideration. i feel comfortable saying 20 30, 40 years ago what another case like king v burrell be in the supreme court. it tells you something has gone seriously wrong. the thing that has gone wrong is we seem incapable of saying that the court should have a rule. now we need to hysterically protected so they can do anything they want. there's no question that the idea of judicial supremacy was not established as part of the background political culture and you see it in the pushback of the time. what you got would make this

work, it is the culmination in the legislation that you get in the mid 60's, the civil rights act. that is a popular political movement that has nothing to do with courts. the fact that you do not want people to be engaged in the political site so the question is, how do we find a balance where we do not have to say the court will be a protector of rights and no matter what they do, no matter how undermining it is we have to protect their authority because someday we hope they will do something we like. i remember robert post showing me when the court decided pearson myers, they sent those opinions around to the editors saying see, we are not always conservative. and use that to do 25 other thing. that will go both ways. this is not whether your liberal or conservative. the question is, can we have a

system as we did do most of american history where we can have pushback? what are the devices to pushback? the things nelson mentioned i think are great. jurisdiction stripping is great budget slashing as fine. who did this in american history? jackson, lincoln, teddy roosevelt, franklin roosevelt. it is only in the last 50 years that we have moved to the position that what judicial independence must be is that any of our devices are such a threat to what the court is going to do that we cannot do it. we need to be banned and recognize that pushback has to come back -- has to come for both ways. for every brown, or is a citizens united. or a bush v gore. the day after when gore comes out and says, it would be unpatriotic to do anything other than a clear yes.

in 1876, that would not have happened so the court to not feel it had the ability to step in. so it is that dynamic that we need to be aware of, and so we do need some devices. i think it is good to talk about what they are. there's a possibility they would play some role but we have moved in our public debate so far from that. it is depressing sometimes. my fans are ralph nader and newt gingrich. that is a left right thing but that is not where i want to be on either one, and something is wrong when the notion of challenging judicial supremacy is so fringy that this is what you get. >> it is not an accident that the notion is a french phenomenon. we should not leave the story off in the 1930's. we have to think about the 1950's and brown, and there was pushed back. most prominently, the southern

manifesto where a group of southern congressmen and senators get together and offer their own constitutional interpretations, incredibly legalistic documents. one can use that to stand for the proposition that judicial supremacy may not have been so widespread, but that makes a lot of people so uncomfortable when individuals are taking the constitution into their own hands. i think the notional of judicial supremacy was a good bit more widespread in the 1950's as judged by the southern manifesto. people responded in really strong terms saying, who are you question mark -- who are you? newspapers all around the country say, who do these guys think they are? it is not an accident, given our modern historical moment that individuals are made uneasy when they say, i do not care what the

supreme court says, i'm going to go ahead and do it. >> that was true when jefferson was president as well. the have always been people. just very quickly the judicial supremacy position throughout the vast bulk of america has been a conservative position. pick your conservatives are. the progressive fiction -- the progressive position was always in favor of democracy. the left flips and the right doesn't. the debate over who had interpretive authority beginning in the 60's the debate shifted to how do you interpret the constitution? the stakes are so high what the supreme court is going to do. the dominant position shifts and it shifts because the left, from my perspective, is a shortsighted faction. now suddenly there is agreement from left to right.

it is the court that you tell us what our rights are and what the constitution means. now we have to wait for someone to die retire, or get tired of the job, or amend the constitution. >> a little bit of flipping going on today. it seems to me, on some of the various jurisdictions. in the not-too-distant past, it was liberals who wanted very generous ideas in standing. now all of a sudden, basically any plaintiff the plaintiff in king against burwell who was about as sketchy as they,, let's not investigate their standing. let's not question the standing of abigail fisher to bring the fisher case, even though she already graduated from college and there is no redressability. maybe that reflects what you were talking about. >> i think you have to separate

the litigants'choices from the courts' decisions. i do not know why the solicitor general office not bring a challenge to standing in king versus burrell. there is not the supreme court it was the litigants' choices. in terms of the supreme court we should not think about it all of a sudden as liberalizing standing. the last case was klapper versus amnesty international where the supreme court ruled 5-4 that no one would have standing to challenge federal law, giving the national security agency the ability to intercept communications. the reason was that no one could show their communications would be dissected -- would be intercepted by the nsa. that was a terrible decision in terms of standing, and that is the most recent one. >> when some of you all were

clerking, the court took about twice as many cases or even more as is decided today. some of the things i am hearing maybe you are still taking too many cases. as the court decided to much? >> i think they are not taking enough cases. they are taking the wrong kind of cases. there are lots of important decisions that need to be resolved. a professor name arthur hellman did a study of the court granting practices and what he found was there a pairs to have been a cultural -- there appears to have been a cultural shift away from an obligation to resolve circuit splits. they can always find some way of saying, it is not a true split but if i recall correctly, he suggested that justice white was the last justice on this court

who took the obligation to clarify the law where the circuit splits, take that seriously. he suggests with a lot of data that that is pretty much gone now. i do think that is unfortunate they should take more cases that actually involve more law and less politics. without suggesting that you can have a pure version of either one ever. >> i do not think it matters. what i said at the beginning was, there is a reasonable number of cases and they probably could take more that are technical legal cases. the supreme court is fine for that. they have that expertise both as judges and the have the law clerks. >> they want to get rid of the law clerks. >> in any given term, it does not matter if there are 75 or 150 cases on the merits. there are four or five that are

the big cases. these are the ones we care about. it would be those in either domain. i do not think you are going to affect the fact that there are these momentous issues the supreme court has assumed and always has, a rule in deciding those issues. i do not think it changed. >> i agree it would not change much. >> but you think every circuit split water be -- -- circuit split ought to be -- >> i should point out there was a time when the supreme court decided hundreds of cases a year with no law clerks. they decided the cases. they were acting like judges. that is not impossible thing for them to do. >> are there any kinds of cases that the court is ducking or

failing to take note of that they should? >> second amendment cases. they recently denied a second amendment case and it drew dissent from justice thomas and justice scalia. >> anything else? >> i have not identified a systematic category. every time there is a conference i see cases where there is a real circuit lit and then inexplicably is denied. this year, the court had oral arguments and 68 cases. last year, the court decided 68 cases. before that it was 65. nelson points out as early as the 1980's, the court was deciding 160 cases a year. i think there are cases where

there are splits among the circuits and the court is not taking them. i also think a consequence of the smaller docket is the opinions have gotten much longer. as the number of cases goes down, the length of opinions goes up and i do not think that has led to better analysis or better opinions. >> also in defense, there was some criticism about the opinions not being written for lawyers. in defense of interesting and perhaps long opinions, i think that is one of the rare instances where we do have some trends parents see from what for the public -- transparency from the court to the public. i think having his opinions being written in a way that is interesting and understandable is only a good thing. i would note on the cases that the court should be taking, i think there are cases involving criminal defendant that the court is not necessarily taking. i do not know if that is because they are not interested but i

distinctly remember a day that the court granted the case about the destruction of fish, and whether that counted as evidence destruction. they denied a petition where there was a circuit split on whether you can have a nonunanimous jury sentenced the person to life of hard labor. i wish the court would have taken that, and i think some of these cases involving, they are not sexy social issues or high political issues, they do not have big business interests, but the implicate very important constitutional values. >> one area i would identify as involving cases that the court should take more of but seems to be reluctant, would be the constant -- the context of student light. the court has not heard a case concerning student light in the last six terms. during the roberts court, the

rating case -- reading case involving the strip search and the fourth amendment and that bong hits for jesus case involving students. there are three major cases the court has decided but it seems not to want to get involved. there are is lots of discussion about the supreme court is ill-equipped to get involved in this arena. i think they shy away because perhaps these cases are incredibly contentious. when we think about our schools we are thinking about who we are as a nation. the effort to stay out of that matter is mistaken because lower courts do need guidance from the supreme court in order to be able to deal with these cases effectively. >> can you give us a couple examples of the kinds of cases that are being denied in that area? >> one of the major issues in the area that the circuit courts

are at odds without is speech that happens outside of the school context. on a home computer say were in some other way that ultimately comes back into the school. that does not fit into that traditional doctrinal categories in any way. so that is one of the major issues. there was a case involving religious speech by students about homosexuality, and these are really difficult cases but they are common in the circuit courts as well. so the court seems to not want to get involved with that and all. the court denied this term a case involving students wearing the american flag school. and being told that was impermissible. that sounds insane. the context was, on this day of cinco de mayo this was seen as a

sign of rebellion, so that was a very divisive case. it seems like there would be a place for the court to step in and get involved. >> is that the kind of case we need the court for? >> i have no opinion on that. i do not. i do not think i know enough to really say. >> so you had mentioned court stripping as a valid way of constraining the court. the most recent asian -- occasion i can think of was when some people in congress got concerned that the court was relying too much on "foreign law" and there was a house resolution that was tasked, i think not with the expectation that it would result in some serious piece of legislation but as an expressive protest.

the court and any justice or judge who cited foreign laws should be impeached. it has kind of come down to that what about court stripping is appropriate constraining mechanism? >> what then would stop congress from adopting an unconstitutional law and precluding the supreme court lower federal courts to be able to review it? if congress can do that, we really have lost what the judicial branch is therefore and what marbury versus madison created. i do not want to skip over jurisdiction. the kansas legislature passed a law saying if the supreme court decides a certain way, the funding will be stripped. if anything is a violation of the separation of powers, it has to be that. >> if you have a really

simpleminded -- i am not calling you simpleminded -- but a simplistic idea of how democracy works. this is how looking in the past is helpful. idea with these devices. you seldom need them because the court is acutely conscious of how far it can go. what happens when jurisdiction stripping proposals were routinely introduced, they never passed. that was not because of judicial supremacy. that was because the court, if they go about their responsibilities responsibly, it is an 800 pound gorilla in politics. they play the ball in the judicial way but there is a difference between -- i did a talk and it was clear that the justice was proud when he said, i am doing what everyone else in the country thinks is bad and wrong. it should be enlightened, like

what the rest of the country thinks. they are not all idiots either. the way democratic politics actually works is these things become the point of engagement where these issues are then fleshed out. when i think about the southern manifesto, it started a debate it did not end one. it provided the ground on which you have real public engagement, along with the real political activity, the civil rights act. you do not get that with the court is effectively deemed to be a shutter-up of politics. the way people respond to the court is not just a way -- a product of whether they disagree or agree but to the extent they feel entitled. i treat my boss definitely when i disagree with him or her that i do my subordinates. whether the court sees itself as our boss were our subordinate

will affect how it operates. if you look historically, i think you get a better balance with these devices being available, not that you cannot imagine the parade of horribles. the marshall court in the 1820's did not stop eating the marshall court but it pull back, probably to the benefit of the country. it is the availability of the threat. it is not the best way to do it. this is what our constitution leaves us because when it was written, none of them remotely imagined the court would play this kind of role. the english common-law history problem of, i do not care if he is guilty or innocent, i want him convicted, so we want to make that impossible and they were stuck having to come up with things together. super majorities for appointments, these are the devices we have.

i would rather have them than nothing because what you get is this court. >> we are having cards collected if people have questions. >> i want to pick up before we get to that on what larry said. i think part of what your comments reflect is that things actually are kind of working now. we do have these pushback from the other branches and we have, when congress does not like the supreme court has done -- the ledbetter decision -- it passes a law. this decision has deleterious effects and it is a problem. he is speaking to the american people in the way that he is empowered and entitled to do so. when i think about this question of whether the court is a failure or not, part of it is so interested. i do mine -- i do not mind

saying it is not. i think that in many important ways, it is not a failure and part of that is because it is the independent judiciary that our founders put in place instead of some of the european or english models that was not as independent. the legitimacy of the institution is reflected in the fact that i think the american people think it is legitimate. even when gore comes out and says, i disagree but i will stand by the decision, that is an institutional success. i think it only continues to be that way if there is some sort of idea that the court acts according to the law and not just politics. no one has said this more often than chief justice roberts, who says he does not want the court to be considered another political entity. i think we have a lot of instances, even in the roberts

court era were that seem to be true. you see the court reaching out to something they did not have to decide. in kingsley burwell, it will be another major test. when you have scholars from across the ideological spectrum saying, that certainly attests to whether the court will follow politics or law. that is something to watch, to see whether the court is a failure or not. right now i would be the voice of optimism in saying that it is not good we might disagree with it but institutionally it is not a failure. it stepped in days ago -- years ago when it issued the ruling on loving versus virginia. >> our conversation has provoked quite a few good questions so maybe i will turn to those in our last 15 minutes or so. one question is, are there lessons or reforms from state supreme court's they could

inform the federal supreme court? >> i will give an example -- a number of states have a merit selection system for their supreme court justices but i think any president could voluntarily create a commission, bipartisan, and say he wants names, two or three supported by two thirds of the group, and promises to pick from those names or ask for additional names. alaska has used the system to tremendous success. sarah palin picked a person, working kristen, to be on the alaska supreme court who president obama put on the ninth circuit. jimmy carter created merit selection for his federal district court and federal court of appeals appointment. i think i can make the argument for federal court of appeal's argument that they are some of the most diverse in american history and he might have done

that for the supreme court had he had a supreme court vacancy. any president could make such a merit selection commission. >> any response to that? >> i have one question, which is, with the merit selection system lead to the potential nomination of the sorts of people that larry was taking about, the public figures, the senators and people who have played an important role in public life or would it instead lead to the mark traditional way of judges on the courts of appeals? like larry, i am drawn to the old model and it is hard to imagine that girl born -- earl warren would have been on anyone's merit team. i guess that is one concern about the merit reflection system. >> merits can certainly include

life and political experiences. merit does not have to be so narrowly defined. i think a merit selection system, like produced ruth bader ginsburg i do not think would have produced some of the other members of the court and i do think it could prisoners -- produce another felix frank or hugo black. i think it depends on how we define merit, and maybe creating a process would cause a discussion on what you mean by -- on what we mean by merit. >> we have talked a lot about the failings of the lifetime tenure system but the majority of state systems have elected judges with term limits. those state says -- judges are subject to attack ads, especially being soft on crime. what is the answer to judicial nutritional -- neutrality?

i expect this to reflect on the dangers of the election of the state court. we certainly have seen recently in the state court state constant -- wisconsin is one example. in the recent judicial election in the -- and the unseating of the chief justice abrams m. a terribly messy situation. does anybody have thoughts about electing judges? >> well, i think i agree with justice o'connor on this and that is a pretty -- it is a pretty bad idea. we have seen some of the problems, which the person who submitted the question points out. it also, to me, raises in my mind why some folks who criticize the court want to make it more like the democratically elected branches.

i cannot imagine right now -- and i know we want to -- but i can imagine people saying that it should be more like this congress. it doesn't seem like it to me. and i think that is something to keep in mind when we are thinking about what is the better alternatives. >> let me just be clear, i certainly wouldn't argue that judicial elections have been a good thing. if they remember where it came from historically, which was a fight in the earlier years over who controlled of the lot. they moved to judicial elections to make sure that people who control the common law would be somewhat at the control of the democratic congress. by the way, it establishes itself and regularize his and a gets picked up in the federal torts much later. there is a certain irony there in terms of where this idea

comes from. the notion of accountability, there are all forms, alternate ways -- all different ways. the amazing thing about the founders is they thought this through very carefully. and each of the different branches of government had balance. the election by state legislatures, we have lots of options. nobody is arguing that we want the courts to be elected the way congress is. the other point that i would say because i guess it gets pushed back a lot now is, congress, are you serious? nothing could be worse than congress. we are spending $50 million at my organization just to see if we can fix that. it is not to give up on that and turn your lawmaking over to an oligarchy, i don't get that part of it. >> fdr added, well, tried to add

or justices to the supreme court. would adding more justices solve problems or create more problems ? of course, we are used to having nine justices. we have had nine justices throughout the 20th century, but there is nothing in the constitution that tells us how many justices congress should designate. so we have the right size on the court? does it matter? >> you can manipulate it. >> again, the court thing when lincoln gets elected, the increase the size of the court because they want him to have more say. then when johnson gets elected they shrink the court. when grant is elected, they increase the court again. >> we will leave the last few minutes of this discussion to go live now to the capitol hill, where they are hosting a panel. among the panelists albeit lieutenant general michael flynn

, the director of defense intelligence agency from 2012 two 2014. >> a little over a year ago, i was elected to chairman of this. we were created to unite conservatives to attain greater political and policy victories and we need them now more than ever. it has been a great honor to work with our team, to help restore our financial health, reimagine this year's seatac -- c-pac, and to make it clear that the american conservative union's stand for a conservative philosophy across the policy spectrum. we will advocate for strong families, the right to life, and a culture vested by our sacred traditions. we will fight the growth and incompetence of our out of control centralized government. and on behalf of the constitutional principles that empower the individual and

curtail government. and as we clearly state today the american conservative union and the american conservative union foundation will stand up for america. for her security, and for foreign follow -- policy that recalls the guidance of president ronald reagan, who urged us to strive for peace through strength. it gives me great pleasure to be able to tell you that we have unveiled our new policy center, which many of you might have read about today. policy center for statesmanship and diplomacy. and this event today is that center's inaugural event. we believe that the content was too valuable to leave it out -- at a conference and we need to talk about it throughout the year. that is why we are coming back to you with more policy centers in the weeks and months to come

on the full range of conservative issues. our intent with these policy centers is to better inform activists, let officials, and their staff, many of whom are here with us today, and other key decision-makers. i don't know if you feel like i feel, we don't suffer from a lack of opinions, especially in my family with five daughters. or information. we are deluged with opinions and information. to get timely information, that is digestible, that we can understand. and we do suffer from a perception that conservatives are simply people who complain, who yell stop, and who generally stand in the corner with her arms crossed -- i have been this guy -- and their minds closed. and with the topic today, that might be exactly the right stance. but we also know that we love our country, we pray for her

people, and we know that our philosophies will help us develop policies that can bring us peace and prosperity and improve the state of the world. we are confident and we are optimistic. that we can still make a difference. so why have we started this? because there is a very unusual dynamic occurring in this country and our politics. usually pocketbook issues affect elections. we all hear about the analysis that it is people's economic stance that determines who they will vote for. and i think -- much because of president obama -- something is going to change in this next election. i think issues of maturity will dominate this election. security in our communities, in our homes, and of course security of our nation. as americans watch in horror the brutality of radicalized islamic

terrorists, this white house seems to bait our entire future on a simple rose garden strategy. we would not be here today if it were not for two dynamics of people. i want to say thank you to all the staff who have worked so tirelessly. those who are planning for today and although centers -- all the centers. i want to say thank you to the staff. and i also want to give special recognition to one of our board members, john eddie, who flew in here -- well, i'm not going to say where you came from, but who resides in colorado and got in here very early this morning. and do his business partner wade murphy, whose support has made not only this center possible, but the entire plan for acu and this foundation going forward. and now my next task is to do something that is really easy. speaking of energetic people, i am proud to introduce you to kt

mcfarlin, who has -- kt mcfarland, who has agreed to be on our team. it is hard to find someone who is smart, dynamic, and famous. there is no one in the country who helped us more to put on this fabulous conference we just had and help dan and ian and the team more than kt. it wasn't all about her. it was about making the country understand the huge problems of obama's foreign policy. she has earned our enduring respect and she is the absolute perfect person to lead our discussion here today. kt please come to the podium. >> [applause] kathleen troia mcfarland: thank you, all, very much.

the topic we want to talk about today is iran. there is really no issue on the american agenda -- foreign policy agenda -- that i think is more important than iran and the nuclear negotiations that are now happening. in other words, in two weeks time. we have assembled the greatest group of experts that we could find. it is not so much numbers as quality. we have two of the great iran experts in the united states today who have spent years studying this issue. but the person that i am particularly pleased that is able to join us is general michael flynn. the guy at the end. >> [applause] kathleen troia mcfarland: general flynn, he is a lieutenant general in the air force. he stepped down as the head of

the intelligence agency last year. everybody has heard of the cia. nobody as -- has heard of the dia. yet they prevent -- it's not only identifies military threats , but it recommends what we need to do about them. so, general flynn is probably one of the two or three well-respected senior military foreign policy national security analysts in the country. for decades, he never spoke to the public despite being a living legend in intelligence circles. he was run out for being accurate, effective, and blunt. and he was really considered one of the great national security analysts, certainly of his generation. he is now -- has now emerged from the shadows and he has become one of the country's leading spokesman. he is able to face -- say things in the way that everybody can understand. he has sounded the alarm about

imminent and long-term threats facing the nation, and he is like the old ad when general flynn speaks, everyone listens. [laughter] as i said, he is blunt. i also want to introduce the other iran experts we have joining us. dr. michael rubin, he is a resident scholar -- >> [applause] kathleen troia mcfarland: he is a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. he is also a lecturer at the postgraduate school and if you can commentator on the various new shows, including fox news. which, of course, is the best. -- if you do the math, it means you used to work for general plan, right? may. he has a phd from el in iranian history. he lives in post revolutionary iran. he is the author of a book,

"dancing with the devil." and nine days ago, he had his second child. his wife had their second child. >> [applause] kathleen troia mcfarland: and finally, my friend clare lopez. she is the vice president at the center for security policy. she was a career cia operations officer. you know that movie "zero dark 30," that is clare lopez. sharia law, global jihad, and now iran. she is the author of the acclaimed paper "the rise of the iran lobby." but before i get to general flynn and the other speakers, i want to give a little bit of housekeeping. first, turn off your cell phones.

general flynn has a very busy schedule, so he will have to leave promptly at 12:25. so we are going to ask him to make a presentation. i am going to then interview him. and then we will throw things open to questions. he will leave, and then we will do the same to clare lopez and michael rubin. and we are out promptly at 1:25, 1:30. wheels up. to talk about the iran deal, i -- to do a little bit of history, iran is to be one of our greatest friends. when i was in the nixon administration, they were one of our closest allies in the region. in 1979, there was an iranian revolution bringing together -- to power a very different regime. it has been, historically, the most active sponsor of terrorism

around the world. it has pursued a weapons program , particularly a nuclear weapons program. and what has gotten worse is what it has done in the last decade. it has continued a nuclear weapons program, it sponsors terrorism, it encourages regimes throughout the region. and it now gives a certain amount of credibility to its frequent chance of death to america -- chants of death to america. when they first -- president reagan first came into office, diplomats were released, but the relationship has been tenuous at best and probably outright hostility over the last 35 years. or 30 years. one of the concerns that all of us have is that the agreement the administration is negotiating with iran, we are not sure what is in it. we are not sure if it is verifiable. and the three experts today

we'll talk about all aspects of that. and i will then interject my brilliant thoughts throughout of course. but i think the key question for all of us is the administration claims it is this deal or war. is that a legitimate question? is that a legitimate option? is there another option? the second is if it is an agreeable -- in agreement, is it verifiable? is this an agreement as we see it now that is verifiable? is it enforceable? if h eat or if they are deceptive, is it an agreement that we have the ability to call back the sanctions and punished them? and finally, you know, what are they up to? why does iran want this agreement and what will they do with it? we have seen since 1979, they have been aggressive. they have tried to expand their reach throughout the region.

they know they have given aid and comfort to forces that have thought against america. so why do they want this and what will they do when they get it? all of that is -- it is a very rich topic. we have asked everyone to speak to try to summarize their thoughts and sort of fly high. if any of you want to go in the weeds, he can go there with you but we would like this to be a more general and open conversation. i will now turn this podium over to a man who is just really awesome and a terrific spokesman for america's national security. >> [applause] retired lieutenant general michael flynn: ok. i don't really have a prepared comments. so i'm going to say a couple of things here that i believe and i'm just going to tell you why i believe them.

number one, we are -- on a given day is basically one that is based on the history of this country and frankly world history. and when i look into the future and i see where do we want to be as a country, i see it through the eyes of my grandchildren. and i have several grandchildren. my mother, she lived until she was just over 90 years of age. she just recently died. a few months back. absolutely the most courageous person that i have ever known. and an extraordinary woman. and, you know, i am one of nine children. we grew up in an irish catholic family and my father was a very tough guy. a world war ii, korea vet. retired from the army as a sergeant. you know, he worked hard around my house and lifelong learning was a part of our system. so when i look at my -- at my

youngest grandchild, my granddaughter who is three if she is able to live to the age of my mom, her great-grandmother, my granddaughter will be a live in the next century. think about that. not, you know, what we typically do is we think about one administration to the next. most of the young people in here don't even know what they are going to do saturday night. we have to have people who are very serious about the future of our country because anybody that has even done a little bit of just basic world history knows that countries go sideways and they eventually go away. a lot of countries, they are in the dustbin of history and we have to be very, very careful that we understand and we see the indicators and the warning signs that are coming our way. we have to pay very close attention to those. some of those are very tactical.

a lot of the arguments you hear in the media and from elsewhere, other circles, are very tactical. what you don't hear enough about and you don't see enough people at least talking about it is what is the real strategic outlook that where we want our country to be and what we want our country to be. so it is sort of where, why, what. those are really important. and it actually is really good and an audience like this -- and i spoke to an audience about a month ago of mostly young people -- you know -- voting matters. you vote for who you want, but voting actually matters. it is a privilege to vote in this country. and i tell people, voting action in matters in terms of the outcome. whether it is local, state, or federal. people have to get out and vote. they have to vote, they have to vote or punch a. in a piece of paper -- a dot in a piece of paper. but one of the things that is

most irresponsible about voting is that when some of the ghost of vote and they have no idea who they are voting for what the position is of the person they are voting for. they vote blindly. that is not good for this country. not good. for all the young people, in an audience like this, you are sort of preaching to the choir. but i will tell you, most of america is not. most of america doesn't pay any attention until they decide, maybe i'll go try this voting thing. so you have to get involved. as a young kid, my mom was involved in local politics. very heavily involved. this was the sort of late 1960's, early 1970's. i used to get picked up by his go bust driven by a neighbor down the street. what would he have me do? he would have me hustle out to the school bus, go knocking on the doors of people who go to get to the voting booths. and i would escort generally the

nice ladies to the bus and we would take them to the voting booths, escort them in, step back, they would vote, and we would take them home. that still exists in this country. it doesn't exist in, for the most part, this crowd. i'm kind of being very general. a side of our political domain or dimension. it needs to. people need to get involved at the local level and take responsibility. i remember doing that as a child and that affected me because as i have grown up and kind of gotten to where i am at, i remembered, this is what is important about america. what is important is get involved. get involved in the future of this country. when you look at young people, i say, boy, where do i want her to be? what type of letter to i want her to have when she hopefully is alive going into the next century?

so, you know, the words that i wrote down today -- and i'm just going to throw them out here because i want to get to some questions here very quickly -- clarity. ok? this nation needs clarity right now. instead of confusion. we are confused. we are confused from a national security perspective, foreign policy perspective. i could take it all the way down into immigration education, but we need clarity and we need it now. and the clarity has to start at the very top of our government. and we need it now. we don't need confusion. what is this thing? kt mentioned the iranian deal. it cannot be so secretive these days. transparency is hugely important. the second thing is confidence. i want my leadership to be confident in themselves. i'm confident in what i do. i don't want to demonstrate weakness. i don't want the united states of america to appear weak.

i want us to be the strongest. i have very, very selfish self interests when it comes to the united states of america, and i want us to be confident no matter what we do, where we do it. i don't want us to show weakness, even though we might be weak in some cases. we have to make sure that we are confident in everything that we do. every action that we take. the third word is coherence. coherence. instead of discourse, what an enormous opportunity we have had over the last few years to bring a sense of coherence, to bring together a nation instead of this discord that we see. it is unbelievable. and or miss opportunity squandered. we need coherence. we need coherence in this country, we need coherence internationally, people need to know who stands for them and where do they stand. other part of that sort of team

of teams within the international community? interpreting nations of the world? if you don't contribute, you don't get a seat at the table iran. you don't contribute to the greater good of humanity. why are they sitting at the table with united states of america? y? y? -- hy? -- why? why? the fourth what is character. what type of characteristics do we want the united states to be known for? reliability, trustworthiness, a good friend, a good partner when we need to be? respected? instead of what i would just kind of -- i mean -- we have sort of lost what our consciousness is of what america was built on. lots of sacrifice. lots of sacrifice. over many, many generations of

americans. 240 years, roughly. this last sunday was our flag day. i mean, we actually haven't been around that long. to be honest with you. we have only been a great nation since the end of world war ii. world war ii, we came into our own. we really did. 70 years, this is the anniversary, right? we have to be really really really conscious of that. and i think that character matters in all the people that we have. i mean, i can stand for mistakes that people make. human error. human error is ok. we are all human. i have made enormous mistakes. but mistakes that were done in trying something, not done to, you know, intentionally. so we all make mistakes. we can overcome some of those. not all of them.

there are some immoral and illegal things that happen out there. but if this is just trying to make sure that we understand what is it that we want as americans going forward. really, really important time that we are in. we are in an era of our history -- as far out as i can see, and i try to see one of the major trends that is happening over the next 25 to 50 years -- if we don't come to grips with that now, we will be a different country. we will begin to turn into a different country. look for those indicators, those warning signs, those things that tell us what is changing, why is it changing, do we like the change, can we shape the change in a way that we want to shape that. and one of the most important things in this country -- and i will take it back to voting -- is to vote. get out there and vote. make it count. so, i have -- i want to make

sure that we get to questions,kt. i will stop there and thanks again. really honored to be a p with everybody. these people are unbelievable experts. thank you. >> [applause] kathleen troia mcfarland: the general has given us a very broad area that we can talk about, but i'm going to drill down. can you all hear me if i stand here? i want to get to specifics. we are in the situation room. i'm a national security advisor and you are the head of foreign policy. so i'm going to ask you about the agreement with iran. first of all, do we want to deal with iran? retired lieutenant general michael flynn: so, the agreement, i think, is based on a number of false assumptions that we have made about iran. one of them is that we can change the behavior. i mean, even recently they have said death to america. if somebody comes up and punches you in the nose, you don't --

you have to do something. why would you deal with somebody who -- you know -- who is crying out, death to america? why would you deal with the number one state sponsor of terrorism? why do do with the country who has all of this negative baggage before we change their behavior? before we actually went to see the type of behavior. again, it gets back to, i'd contributing to the greater good of humanity or are you not? i don't think that right now -- we didn't start this thing off on the right foot. retired lieutenant general michael flynn: you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies. so what would have to happen for us to be even willing to have any agreement with iran? regime change, different attitude, or would you be willing to do a deal with iran as long as we had complete confidence and verification and four spent? retired lieutenant general michael flynn: i would have said -- and this is hindsight right

now because we will have a deal. there is going to be a deal, whether we like it or not. i'm going in sort of with that position. >> and we will leave this conversation for just a few moments for a brief pro forma session of the u.s. house before we returned to live coverage immediately afterwards. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. june 19, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable macthornberry to act as speaker -- mac thornberry to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest the chaplain: rain reverend dr. kirk gerhart, washington, d.c. the