one of the great privileges of being the chief justice is that you get to be the circuit justice for the fourth circuit, a tradition going back to john marshall. the role of the circuit justice has changed dramatically since his time. circuit justice is no longer have to ride circuits, that arduous process began in the reign of king henry ii. it came over to the colonies with the english system. over here, riding the circuit was much more arduous given the greater distances. the system fell into disuse after the act of 1891, which set up the system of intermediate courts of appeals we have today. the practice formally ended 100 years ago this year with the judiciary act of 1911. we have worked out a pretty good deal. we will stop interfering directly with your work and you invite us to your conferences. [laughter] before i sit down and joined judge wilkinson, i want to make a few very brief remarks about the state of your supreme court. my colleagues and i heard 86 cases this year, selected from more than 8000 petitions for review. our argument calendar runs from october until april.

is it on a justice by justice basis where had you enacted certain policies? >> i sit down with the incoming clerks at the beginning of the year as soon as we get back and go through a number of things they have to be aware of and that is one of them. i tell them they obviously should not be tweeting about what they are doing or whether they have websites or whatever. a lot of this is an advert in. they think they're working really hard this week and getting ready -- so many people can look at what they are saying and put two and two together and figure out what their boss is doing. unintentionally, they sometimes reveal confidences. that is very dangerous. i also appreciate that it is a generational thing and the idea that they are not being connected in a particular way could be problematic for them. it is also a generational thing, -- some members of the court are more into that than others. i do not think any of us have a facebook page or tweet, whatever that is. [laughter] technology is making inroads. when we are traveling, it is easier to have some of u

picture and tom hartman coming up in this half hour chaos erupts in wisconsin as a supreme court justice allegedly chokes another just it's one of the accused governor scott walker's right hand man it was scandal unravel the governor's radical agenda plus big oil is added begin with or astroturf phony front perhaps see how the world's biggest polluters are manufacturing support for their anti-american agenda and what is it that corporate c.e.o.'s republicans don't want you to know it's just it's the same thing that any bank robber wouldn't want you to know just how much they're stealing from. the. students that was causing can forget about a quality education yesterday cockcrow their lapdog governor scott walker signed a new republican budget bill to tackle that state's deficits caused by governor walker's tax breaks for corporations and millionaires and billionaires so how does walker's bill reduce the deficit the republican way of course by cutting eight hundred. and dollars from public schools in the state and directing those savings to even more corporate tax breaks for the two hundr

and other justices who were there at the time i will remain nameless this is second hand but other justices who were there at the time will cross the board who say that it was not eight bradley not a joking situation that he appeared to those involved in a violent or at least a very animated angry attack. erica justice prosser has apparently history of anger management problems he's got quite a temper and he was on the record calling he cast a sharlee haven't found a match. or there's. footage of him when he was in the assembly kind of go and walking very aggressively shaking his fist and raising his fist up in the air at another member of this family so he's got quite a temper but i think you know there's a really this is really reflective unfortunately of the divisiveness. the conservatives have had in the state capitol i mean there was constant supreme court is still in the actual building of the wisconsin capitol and that they were you know supposedly also you know discussing their decision here and that this law has become so divisive has become so polarizing that it would come to the

he led justice roberts, and justice kennedy, and justice alito. you have justice sotomayor, justice kagan, and justice ginsburg in dissent. justice scalia emphasizes what he called the principal purpose of the faa, which he described as insuring the enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their term. he wrote the point is to allow for efficient streamlined procedures tailored to the type of dispute, and the court's view class arbitration interfere with this one it was compelled by state law, and not consentual. by contrast, justice breyer is now emphasizing the plain language of the federal arbitration act, and specifically he argued that what california had gone fell directly in the scope of the act's exceptions, permitting the failure of enforcement. in other words, california was treating class arbitration waivers just like it treats other contractual provisions that are found to be unconscionable. so, but that picture that the very same justices in these important cases the final congressional intent in different ways suggests to me

and it goes, "the only justice in the hall of justice is in the hall." so the perception is that justice is not rendered via the path of law or via the path of court. justice, as the native american says, is just us, to it the native establishment. for the native american, the white power system. for us in contemporary time, there is no justice. there is no justice in the courts. and that's sad commentary. and it's mainly predicated, from my perspective, on the swollen power and control that the executive class has now administered on the judicial class. the judicial power, discretion, separateness now has been vastly, vastly inroaded. the kind of final comment, and i'll put it into contemporary setting, is when it is said the law is fair, it applies to everyone equally. no one is above or below the law. the rule of frame is the street people cannot sleep under the bridge, but the chief of police and the district attorney cannot sleep under the bridge. see how fair it is? it's equal. isn't it? [applause] >> actually, we'll have the d.a. here and the chie

and it goes, "the only justice in the hall of justice is in the hall." so the perception is that justice is not rendered via the path of law or via the path of court. justice, as the native american says, is just us, to it the native establishment. for the native american, the white power system. for us in contemporary time, there is no justice. there is no justice in

it is crucially important for administration of justice. and so is san francisco conflicts panels where administration, which the bar association has provided in partnership with public defenders. so in san francisco when a public defender has a conflict of interest, criminal defendants and minors are represented by private attorneys from a panel administered by the bar association of san francisco. maintaining this independent body of attorneys is critically important as a well-run public defenders office. we are each other's complement. we are the sum of the parts that makes whole the criminal departments working so well in san francisco. in 2003 the superior court contracted with the bar association of san francisco indigent to have cost-saving oversight to the administration and billing associated with conflicts. so tron is the director of the courts administration and has been working with jeff since 2003 to make sure that indigent panels are effective and that they do all -- that we do all we can to prevent recidivism. so thank you, j

it is notable that justice justice kagand appear not to be sitting back as freshmen justices. they're prepared to leap in. justice sotomayor's strikes me as active as she was in the california prison overcrowding case. the other side of the court, where familiar with the roles played by justice scalia and justice thomas. thomas has become one of the most intriguing figures on the court. he seems willing to consider almost any precedent. he is willing to take a fresh look at it. we know about justice scalia's role as well. just as alito is emerging as one of the more interesting figures to look at on the court. there is a tendency to lump him in with the chief justice. there is a high correlation of agreement in their voting patterns but there are interesting cases. i am thinking of the first amendment and the case involving snyder v. phelps, where justice alito was the dissenter. recalling a case from the previous term involving videos depicting animal cruelty, once again, he was the lone dissenter. he is coming to have his own voice on the court. final comment is to lay on th

it is four justices, including the chief. it is based on a novel, texture list, and original interpretation of the supremacy clause that arose in a law review article by caleb nelson of the university of virginia. it was left to justice sotomayor to reject the move toward a more original list understanding of the supremacy clause. i think it is an important sense in which the roberts court is a pro-preemption court. but the jury is still out. justice kennedy did not join this part of the agreement, but did join opinions in which a presumption against pre-emption makes no appearance. the last question i want to talk about briefly is why this matters. if this is a pro-preemption court, is there cause for concern from a federalist perspective? i think the answer is yes. i am relying on the scholarship of my colleagues at duke, ernie young. he says if you care about federalism you ought to care about preemption. we live in a world of very broad congressional power when it comes to the commerce clause under article 1, section 8. i

the role of the circuit justice has changed dramatically since chief justice marshall crime. they no longer have to write circuit, that arduous process which began during the told the century, came over to the colonies with the english legal system. even though here, writing circuit was much more arduous given the greater distances and the greater dangers of travel. the system and fell into disuse after the efforts of 1891 which set up the intermediate courts of appeal system we have today and the practice formally ended 100 years ago this year, with the judiciary act of 1911. since that time, we have worked out what strikes me as a pretty good deal. we wil stop -- we will leave you alone in you and by this to your conferences. before i join judge wilkinson, i want to make some comments. my colleagues and i heard 86 cases this year selected from more than 8000 petitions for review. as you know, the argument calendar runs from october to april. , we continued the practice of hearing more cases in the fall than we do in the spring and with the idea that it will give us the chan

this is a question of justice delayed is justice denied. i'm stealing hear from our public defenders work, but i agree with him. the cases do not get better with time. when we have homicide cases that are 4 years old or older, it creates a tremendous problem not only for the district attorney but for the public defense as well. it is a question of justice. this is an area we are trying to address. it costs approximately $50,000 to keep someone in our county jail. this is an area we would like to move a foreword and try to reduce that number. the current staffing levels here, you will have cases aging and it will impact successful prosecutions. you heard our public defender talk about this -- this is a whole issue of compliance and dealing with the cases that may have had some irregularities. this is an area where we reviewed 4800 cases and responded to 425 motions. one single case took one attorney a year to get the most work -- on not going to read this, you can see it. looking at fiscal year 2011- 2012, we are looking at 53 defense inquir

to the 2011 justice summit by the book. i'm so excited to be here. you know, we've been doing these summits now for seven years, but this by far is the most exciting summit. i cannot wait to hear the panelists that we have today. we're going to be delving in to some of the most critical issues affecting the criminal justice system at this time. and we're going to talk about, what is justice and what it means. you know, plateo said, "i do not know what justice is, but i know what it is not." and that is very true when you think about it because it's something that we take for granted, that we believe in, that we hope for, but the reality is is that we don't understand and appreciate justice unless we are deprived of it. and in many cases the definition of justice is the correction of an injustice, and that's really the spisht that we're approaching today. we have three action-packed panels. our first panel celebrates the 50th anniversary of a novel that really defined american justice in the 1960's and that's "to kill a mockingbird." and many a lawyer

and the justice department. despite the seriousness of the whistle-blowers' allegations and my repeated inquiries, the justice department continued to deny me access to the documents. as a result, i urged my colleagues to oppose cloture on james cole to be deputy attorney general. well, that cloture opposition worked, and we have since reached an agreement with the justice department and senator leahy that will guarantee my access to vital documents, information, and witnesses regarding this a.t.f. operation. i also understand that senator chambliss has reach an agreement on obtaining the information he has sought on behalf of the intelligence committee. accordingly, i know lift my opposition to the senate holding a vote on mr. cole's nomination. however, i want to explain that i'm going to vote against this nomination for many reasons. i oppose the nomination of james cole to be deputy attorney general at the department of justice because i have serious concerns regarding mr. cole's qualifications. in addition,

-- it is its enacted by justice by justice? >> i sit down with each of the clerks and go through a number of things they need to be aware of. i tell them that they should obviously not be tweeting about what they are doing. a lot of it is inadvertently. we are working very hard on opinion this week, getting ready, and discerning people can look at what they are saying and put two and two together and figure out what their boss is doing. even unintentionally, they can sometimes reveal confidences and that is very dangerous. it my advice is to put that all on hold. i appreciate that it is a generational than in the idea of "not being connected" can be problematic for them. the different members of the court are more adept at others. i do not think any of us have a facebook page or tweet, whatever that is. tetralogy is making inroads. when we travel, it is easier to have some of us briefed on some of the products where you can have them electronically available and carry them around. different people have different comfort levels.

if they fail, that might be the community justice center and then the traditional criminal- justice system. supervisor kim: could you talk about what you expect the fiscal impacts to be? >> we have estimated prosecuting low-level misdemeanor would cost approximately $300 to $400. we estimated prosecuting al level is a meter in the traditional courts is approximately $1,500. we're looking at about an $1,100 savings. if everything works the way we are looking at, perhaps as much as 20% of our misdemeanor workload could be eventually ending up the neighborhood courts. by the way, the cost and giving you does not include that trevino incarceration as a result. there are many other things included. supervisor kim: it will be helpful as the program continues to expand to collect what cost savings you have from the program. there are other values and benefits besides dollars to a program like this. the one thing i do want to say and we talked about this, how frequently victims are left out of the criminal justice process and how alienating and isolating that can be for victims of crime. we know v

where we say in justice for all? >> nothing meaningful from an attorney comes from the seeded posture. it doesn't mean that anything meaningful comes from an attorney when he rises. let me share in respect to answering your question what some of the after riseles are that are circulating the concept. the lawyers sit in the hall of justice, in the hall, and they converse with their client and other attorneys. and there's a little refrain that is often repeated. and it goes, "the only justice in the hall

justice system. what would you do to improve it? we'll start with you first, john. what would you improve? this is an imperfect society that we have. we know that. what can we do to improve it? >> gee. you know, i don't know anything about the criminal justice system. but i think you need to start out in, you know -- we need to have income redistribution in the country. i mean, it's crazy. and if you do that, you know, in an important way, then a lot of these problems are just going to get fixed by themselves. they're fundamentally economic problems. we used to have 90% taxation of, you know, very high income individuals. we don't do that anymore. i meek, god, dividends and capital gains are taxed at 15%. that's just incredible. it's an incredibl incredible st. -- steal. so that's what i would say. >> well, it's a subject matter that's ripe for hours of discussion. but very quickly, we litigate in the criminal form too many times of actions and behaviors. so the first thing is, take out all the so-ca