the justices deserve praise. they are practically the only people in washington trying not to get on television. they are just trying to do their jobs, and they have taken significant strides. they don't just say they care, but they do things. they publish their opinions. they created a website that's accessible in realtime, publish the transcripts the same day, now publish the audio in the same week, and they are headed in the direction on their own, and the ?afort sessions -- senator sessions pointed out they asked for deference in the process of reaching this conclusion, and like other courts before them, this is always been done, i think, pretty much by the judiciary voluntarily rather than a legislature telling them to do it, and the trajectory is its inevitable that television will be in the supreme court, and i would not provoke the controversy of them requiring them to do it. thank you. >> thank you very much. judge cady. >> madam chairperson, members of the committee. it is my pleasure and my honor to be

eisenhower had not contemplated making him chief justice, but getting him the first justice. he did not tender the seat rightfully promised to him. dulles was just named secretary of state and aspired to be secretary of state and declined. after fencing, they persuaded ike they should deliver on the promised name nation and announced the appoint on september 30th of 1953. congress was in recess at the time and warren resigned the governorship on a friday and was at the supreme court the following week. he took his seat as a justice designate, one other interesting thing to note, needless to say, almost inconceivable in today's judicial environment, and the other thing interesting about the nomination and confirmation because he was already seated on the court when the confirmation hearings started in the spring, warren declined to atent violating the separation of powers if he were required to testify, and he did not. again, hard to imagine today. what warren found when he came to the court was the badly divided court i just described to you on the issue of brown. there were

can you tell us a bit about that and what impact it had on justice stephen? >> there is along a legacy of action in the supreme court and others in the lamb bleating that to be brought the board of education decision of 1954. in fact books have been written about that. the 1954 decision was obviously landmarked there were many cases that came along. it had to do with a woman that wanted to go to law school in oklahoma under the separate but equal doctrine may literally set up a law school for her. she was the only student in eight and it was said she didn't have to go to school with the white students. this whole sort of thing was not common. you have to cast your mind back to that period in the federal courts of all and so on and so forth he got up and presented these cases with such a strident way are doing the cases that eventually overtime it did lead to the board of education and justice stevens as a private attorney had dealings with the thurgood marshall when he was a solicitor general under i guess kennedy if i recall correctly. so yes, they go back a

it is crucially important for administration of justice.nd 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, jef

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 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

we have to be about justice if we're going to follow jesus. it's more for us than it is to say that, that we are so good at this. >> i see. >> just, as lois said, this is aspirational for us as much as anything. this is who we are trying to be and to live into. and there's something that i believe cornell west said this, justice is what love looks like in public. jesus' ministry was a ministry of love. jesus, when asked what is the most important command? he said to love god with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. justice is love made visible. it's what love looks like in public. it's about making love for our fellow man part of our system, part of our policies. that, for us, is a very important part, the heart really, and truly of our walk as people of faith. >> we received an e-mail from you, a couple, i guess a month or so ago about occupy san francisco and 2 or 300 clergy showed up. we were there all day for prayer, support and so forth. what led to that? >> i think what led to it was a frustration, in som

that now this court's newest justice and also it's chief justice made clear he was unwilling to continue that action. that put jackson in frankfurter in particular in an excruciating position. it was one thing for frankfurter for instance to argue judicial restraint on him. it was another for him to be asked to defend racial superior to. both frankfurter and jackson were new deal liberals ideology to. they were both appointed by fdr but frankfurt frankfurter moreover had represented represented the naacp and represented sacco and vanzetti in their appeal. lucifer supreme court justice to hire a black clerk. it was then excruciating for him to be accused of defending white supremacy even if it was in the service of traditional restraint. having stated his position quite boldly warned warren went easy on what to do. he was open to gradual remedies for addressing his constitutional problem. perhaps most importantly was the tactical decision he made which was asking the justices not to record their vote said they. typically they record their tentative votes and there is a record of it. but h

chief justice. i would couple that though with the fact that the state initially set up a system for the representation of indigent capital defendants that relies extremely heavily on the good graces of the out of state counsel to represent indigent capital defenders in alabama. >> what is the only one of the three notices had been returned? >> i think it will be one from the out of state pro bono counsel, i think of the a different case. i think what's remarkable about this case is you have both out of state attorneys, the notices come back marked return to sender, left firm in an envelope, and the clerk does nothing. what's extraordinary about that, mr. chief justice, is that the system in this case were on the out of state attorneys to provide -- >> who says so? who says that they rely on -- at a local attorney, and you have to have a local attorney for the case, don't you? and you want us to believe that the local attorney is, has no responsibility for the case at all? is this really what the la

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

people are standing up for justice everywhere. we have to reach everyone everywhere every place in order to solve this problem. we do have a plaque to presented -- present to j.t > as a result of everything he has been through, but more importantly, to help him in the future -- present to j.t. as a result of everything he has been through, but more importantly, for everything he will do in the future. you can support the work he does with a reentry program for persons coming back from prison. so if we could present this to you. [applause] moving forward, our work cannot stop here. i would like to have christine talk about what we are going to be doing moving forward. we have had meetings with district attorney george gascono about doing things differently. within the police chief, a new district attorney, we have that opportunity -- with a new police chief, a new district attorney, we have that opportunity. i would also like to acknowledge supervisor ross mirkarimi to come up here just for a moment and say hello, and let me have c

the justices do.attorneys and just as important a dialogue among the justices. there is a common bond between members of the supreme court and members of congress. each serves as a trustee of the long-term interests of an essential institution in our country. the court has proceeded cautiously in evaluating whether to televise oral argument. this should give pause when seeking to impose a decision on a coordinate branch of government. a congressional mandate at the supreme court televised its proceedings is likely to raise a significant constitutional issue. lawyers and members of commerce have expressed this possibility, but there should be no need to test the constitutional separation of powers. there is a compelling reason for caution, apart from avoiding a possible constitutional question. the coequal branches of the federal government have long respected each branch is authority and responsibility to govern its own internal affairs and deliberations. this history is deeply rooted in the american

>> i had a student just a couple of days ago asking can the chief justice remove another justice from hearing a particular case. and my answer was, i wasn't sure, but i didn't think so. my memory is and maybe you can correct me on this, this is left up to the individual justice and fortunately for this country, most cases and virtually every case, the justices have done the right thing, reckfiesing it's not enough. just the appearance of impropriety hurts the institution of the court. if there is any kind of question of the appearance of sitting in on a case where you have a relationship to the issues that you remove yourself. >> all right. we'll let you go. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this year, tens of thousands of holiday wreaths were laid at arlington national cemetery. it took more than 10,000 volunteers to place 90,000 wreaths. the effort was organized by wreaths across america which conducts similar efforts nationwide and will remain on view until january 2

petrie dish for criminal justice. for that reason, i as te chief of theeh -- as the chief of the juvenile probation department, participating in this process in offering my full support. supervisor wiener: thank you, chief. now from adult probation. >> thank you, supervisors. i support the establishment of the san francisco sentencing commission to encourage the development of criminal justice sentencing strategies to reduce recidivism -- reduce recidivism and input practices. the importance of sentencing practices cannot be overstated. we have been engaged in implementing evidence from the california risk assessment by the project through the administrative office of the court. santa it is is one of the four pilot counties that has greeted evidence-based sentencing, and it is just the next logical step to those efforts. i applaud the district attorney's efforts here and hope that many improvements that we make here can also be looked at as pilots for statewide implementation. as the architect, the chief architect of

the justices deserve praise. they are practically the only people in washington trying not to get on television. they are just trying to do their jobs. they have taken significant strides. they do not just say they care about public access. they are doing things. the publish bonds -- they publish their opinions, they created a web site available in real time. they publish the audio in the same week, and they are headed in this direction on their own. -- they created a web site available in real time -- a website. this has always been done pretty much by the judiciary voluntarily, rather than the legislature telling them to do it. the trajectory is that it is inevitable that television will be in the supreme court, and i would not provoke a constitutional controversy of requiring them to do it. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. judge cady. mark cady -- >> madam chair person, members of the committee, it is my pleasure and honor to be with you this morning to tell you about iowa's experience with video court pr

the oldest justice, justice brandeis of kentucky. wilson dared not appoint him attorney general, but did appoint him to the court. justice owen roberts. at 61, the youngest justice. long a conservative. since this fight began, liberal in seven decisions. and charles evans hughes, 75. chief justice since 1930. sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal. >> president roosevelt goes on the air in an appeal for popular support for his plan to reorganize the federal judiciary. newsreel cameras filmed his fireside chat, his second such appeal within six days. he tells the people that his plan would protect them. >> those opposing the plan have sought to sow prejudice and fear by saying i am seeking to pack the supreme court, and that a baneful precedent will be established. what did they mean by "packing the supreme court"? let me answer this question with a bluntness that will end all honest misunderstanding of my purpose. if by that phrase is charged i wish to place on the bench spineless puppets to disregard the law and decide specific c

he was a conduit of the spirit of justice. justice had been denied in those times. he brought us from the back of the boss. he brought us to voting rights. but we must continue to fight for justice today. justice is not trying to change the voting rights act and deny us in 34 states our right to vote. justice is not executing people on recanted testimony. justice is not sending children to school that are not -- schools that are not funded. justice is not 1 percent of the country controlling 40% of the wealth. just like dr. king talked about occupying washington, just as those who are occupying wall street, we're going to occupy and take those in that stand up for justice and retire those that stand in the way. [applause] we are here to say that you're going to continue marching in the spirit -- we are going to continue marching in the spirit of dr. king. we marched through the streets yesterday. we gave one message. you will not undo the king during duty will not take away the voting rights act. you will not -- you will not undo the king -- you will not take away t

, justice for working-class people barely making it, justice for middle- class folks who are not abler mortgages, justice for elders terrified they are losing the value of their savings and their health care, justice for the young people who graduate from college, are unemployed and burdened by student loans they cannot repay. justice for everyone who are simply asking the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. sometimes we get caught up in the brand of my father but we forget to focus on the beliefs of my father. we must stand up for economic injustice -- economic justice. we have lost our love, are true force. you could make this argument that we have ultimately lost our souls. we have lost our souls when i see that a 49-year-old black man was brutally murdered in mississippi not in 1963 but in june of 2011. we have lost our souls and i see children bullying other children and young teenagers killing each other. we lost our souls when prisons are a growth industry and the prisons are filled every day with more people than any other industrialized nation. there are more bl

equal justice under law.hat is surely the highest ideal of our profession, and i commend the bar association for its many efforts to translate that ideal into reality, and i hope that during the next century you will redouble those efforts. i mentioned one fact about the supreme court that i think many of you know, the inspiring inscription on the front of the building. but i want to talk about this afternoon are some other things about the supreme court that some people even knowledgeable people either don't know or more likely a tended to forget in reading coverage of our day-to-day work. now, i got the idea for this talk a couple of years ago when i heard about a poll that asked people to named two justices of the supreme court. and what the poll revealed was that more people could name two of snow white's seven dwarfs and could name two justices of the supreme court. i was actually not disturbed by that poll results knowing the names of the personalities and justices is not really very important. and i wa

well you know at this point we need every big major media justice victory we can take so while it is absolutely true that we have a very monopolistic media market that doesn't serve the people very well today we need to be cheering for the fact that instead of a do awfully we have you know a few companies instead of just two but i don't think we should take this victory lightly maybe there's no such word as a troy i just. get any case what are the facts of this case this particular case why you know why what what led to this decision why didn't the law they didn't advertise it work. well you know it's true that since one thousand nine hundred eighteen t. and t. mobile have have donated more than forty seven million dollars to various aspects of our government in order to lobby for quid pro quo for whatever they wanted so when they announced this merger initially there was this real air of inevitability about it they were extremely arrogant as eighteen's he has been a corporate in their corporate practice for years they made it sound like it was a done deal from the beginning but also

girls in the juvenile justice system. i think it's just overwhelming, the number of individuals that are traumatized in these systems. and what we're trying to do is to really develop programs where we start to address what happened to you versus what's wrong with you. i think that was your phrase, maxine, that what was wrong versus, what happened versus what's wrong, so we can start to kind of chisel away at what happened so we can start to build people back up with strength-based kind of programming. and i think women are particularly vulnerable because, if you take a look at it on the sexual abuse side, 1 in almost 20, 1 in 4, it is the statistics that i've seen and also in terms of domestic violence 15 to 45 percent, anywhere between 15 and 45 percent. so it is, that issue is particularly acute, i think, in terms of what the outcomes may be for the criminal justice system, correct? and i think the multiple systems that you find individuals with trauma histories intersecting with. you can look at the homeless programs,

that is the criminal justice system in california is a very huge slice. it is extremely expensive. and in the interests, then, of our state budget being of equal interest for some of us as public safety, we need to get smarter. and part of the way we are going to do that, i believe, is to infuse metrics in our analysis of our effectiveness. looking at our system, beyond some good sense of satisfaction because we are doing things the way they have always been done, and instead infuse metrics into the analysis and do as the private sector tells us is good business and look at the return on -- on our investment, in that way i believe that what you are doing here with all of these leaders, mayors, community leaders, police chiefs and others, is coming together as a community with a collective purpose and desire to be smarter in the way we are using diminishing public resources, and to do what we can to be more effective around the creation of public safety. when i think about specific examples, i'm just going to talk about a couple from my own experience. i k