so, you know, justice stevens was the last justice who served in the military. sandra o'connor. >> last elected official to state government. >> exactly. so we're talking about a very narrow slice of individuals serving on the highest court. and then we have ongoing diversity problems, racial and gender, throughout the federal aappellate system but also throughout the state system. >> that's true. >> that's critically important. that goes to the public's sense of confidence in the judiciary. the sense that it is not closed off. it is not a collect groselect g. we should want all different kinds of people to serve so that those experiences, legal and otherwise, can interact and we can get the best judicial, most informed judicial making that we can. >> one other thing i would ask you to comment on, which came up earlier, but we moved so quickly to so many different topics. jeff, you brought it up in reference to an essay about the courts not being a democratic institution. >> i think they are. >> i'm with you. >> i have a book called "the most democratic branch."

and after chief justice hughes drafted this letter, the senior associate justice, who was justice mcreynolds, declined to sign the letter. the other justices immediately signed the letter, which was sent off to grandfather, and it stands to this day as an indication of how justice mcreynolds felt about grandfather. but to chief justice hughes' credit, he didn't need that signature. he wanted it to stand with all the other justices indicating their respect and affection for my grandfather. >> wasn't both -- weren't both justice brandeis and justice mcreynolds from kentucky? >> no, i'm not sure about mcreynolds, but i think he may have been. >> it was just odd. what in the world -- what was the thinking back then that he would -- and explain how far mcreynolds would go to not be around justice brandeis? >> you have to go back before they were on the court. apparently worked very close with brandeis in 1913 and 1914 to draft legislation. we have a number of letters from brandeis saying i met with mcreynolds today, he and i spent several hours. he once writes to his wife, mcreynolds is besieged

equal justice. "under lock" the meet -- needs the rule of law under the constitution. -- "under law" means the rule of law under the constitution. when i was leaving cuba, we were taken off the plane and held incommunicado in a private room. there were just locked rooms. you didn't know if you would ever see your family again. it only takes one night of that to change your life forever. in many ways, i believe that was the moment i decided to be a lawyer. i never wanted to feel so helpless again in my life. i also knew what was happening there was wrong and that somebody should care about it. if i ever had an opportunity to make a difference, i would do that. i believe that that moment is one that emphasized to me the importance of the rule of law and why we have to preserve our system of justice. most importantly, i remember that night because of a conversation i had with my grandfather. we have learned that the business he learned his whole life to establish was being taken over. what happens is t

justice stevens was the last justice who served in the military. just o'connor -- >> with any connection to state government. >> we're talking about a very narrow slice of individuals who are serving on the highest court. we have ongoing diversity problems, racial and gender throughout the federal appall at system and district system but also throughout the state system. that goes to the public's sense of confidence in the judiciary, the sense that it is not closed off, it is not a select group and it also goes to the quality of judicial decision making. we should want all different kinds of people to serve so those companies experiences, legal and otherwise, so we can get the best judicial decisions we can. >> we moved so quickly to so many different topics. jeff you brought up in reference to an essay about the courts not being a democratic institution? >> i think they are. >> i'm with you. >> i have a book called "the most democratic branch." the basic thesis is of course the courts do play an important role in checking the minority in some case

it is a private system of justice. unfortunately, it is only available very often to people who have money. again, what we call the rent-a- judge system exists today. you have retired judges you can hire four between $500.1000 dollars an hour to adjudicate your case -- hire for between five under dollars and -- 5 hundred dollars -- $500 and $1000 an hour to adjudicator case. there is foreclosure. the supreme court said we need mandatory mediation before trial to try and do away with the logjam we have. mediation is a very useful and efficient way of handling some cases. many cases. it is part of the future of the practice of law. they can be the only part of the practice of law that we use to resolve disputes. >> 30 minutes to go. we are in good shape. i have not been aware of how the time works here. i am learning quickly, i think. in a way, the arbitration system exists in opposition to another fundamental element of our legal system, which is the jury system. we are interested in your views about the role of the jur

justice stevens was the last justice who served in the military. justice o'connor -- [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> we are talking about a very narrow slice of individuals who are serving in the highest court, and then we have ongoing diversity problems, racial and gender throughout the federal appellate system and district court system. also throughout the state system. that is critically important because that goes to the public sense of confidence in the judiciary. the sense that it is not closed off. it is not a select group. and it also goes to the quality of judicial decision-making. we should want all the kinds of people deserve so that those experiences, legal and otherwise, can interact and we can get the best most informed judicial decision-making that we can. >> before we turned the questions, one other thing i would ask you to comment on, he came up earlier. i think you brought it up about the courts not being a democratic institution? >> i think they are. i have a book called the most democratic branch. [laughte

transparent justice. >> and the appearance mat areas because it is erodes trust if people feel -- >> and trust is essential. the judiciary doesn't have its own army. its life blood is the trust and confidence of the people. snuch nick edwards, your turn to weigh in. >> i would pick up on the transparency and i think that's very important. i think one of the ways that you judge what's most valuable is when you look at what's under threat. and if you -- it's important that the people have confidence that the system of our courts is fair and impartial. that when you come before the court, you're going to get a fair hearing. it's not predetermined. and to the extent that at the state level there are people who run for office, you know, the court system is within a democratic system, but it is not democratic. >> yes, i agree with you. >> and the fact that we have people going before a court knowing that the judge got supported by some person, some lawyers or other people might come before the court, might be on the other side really undermines the ability to have trust in the outcome. the

justice is not something you can hear about by rumor. you have to kind of experience it and encounter it to believe in it. so this question of transparent sit is critically important. public has to feel not that they necessarily have a direct role in the selection of everyone who sits on the court but that they can see the mechanics, the mechanisms at work that show how judges get selected, how they come to sit on the court. >> no mysterious star chamber appointments. >> no behind the curtain selection of justices. because judges have such power and we want to have a this level of respect for them and that really requires this be france parent sought public. to linda's point, the transparency issue is critically important. the open court, the idea of being able to walk in and sit down and watch any proceeding and watch a justice on the bench engage until oral argument or preside over a trial is critically important to our sense of the courts as being real, as being real democratic institutions. and to the legitimacy, frankly of the bench

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

the very narrow profile of supreme court justices that we have -- we have a latina print court justice, three women, and we do not have justice who had engaged in private practice. thurgood marshall was the last justice who engaged in solo practice. we're talking about a narrow background. most have been ben appellate judges. -- have been appellate justice. stevens was the last justice to serve in the military. narrowalking about a slice of individuals serving on the highest court, and we have ongoing diversity problems brought the federal appellate system. also it throughout the state system. that is critically important because that goes to the public sense of confidence in the judiciary, the sense that it is not closed off, not a select group, and it goes to the quality of decision making. we want all kinds of people to serve said their experiences can interact and we can get the most informed judicial maki decisionmaking we can. >> you brought it up in reference to the courts not being a democratic institution. >> i think they are. i have a book called "the most democratic branch."

just bit just a modicum of justice because this current american justice quote unquote system is the god awful most corrupt we've seen in generations and this current young group coming up is saying. i've had it. we're going to take you out of office. no matter how we do it you're going to go yeah they get that thing with timothy geitner is playing the fiddle as riding his horse into the senate it's like all of the craziness all of the crazy emperors of rome in rolled up into one before he marries a source. is going to thing i heard so here are the wheels of justice turning that he talks about obama's tainted bundler obama is constantly denouncing millionaires and billionaires for playing by their own rules is true that the campaign told one reporter in february that it wouldn't take more money from john corps sign himself but it's been happy to let the man solicit donations for obama even as chorus line is under investigation by obama's own justice department how cozy a course on should represent the heart out and use it as collateral for a chorus line hard collateralized bond oblig

the wheels of justice are spinning in their graves that's where the wheels of justice are turning this is appalling miscarriage of justice well exactly like we said at the top of the show max this is the collapse of empire one thing that is an ingredient across all collapses of empire is an absence of justice there is no justice for the one percent and therefore there is no justice at all because you can't remove the constitution of the united states and all of its rights the bill of rights haiti is corpus that goes back hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years just for the bottom ninety nine percent and you can do that in fact they have done that but when you do that it ends always the same way well this is one of the primary misconceptions about the occupy wall street movement it's believed that the bottom ninety nine percent feel as though they deserve more as in material wealth that's false but the bottom ninety nine percent want is some justice just a bit just a modicum of justice because this current american justice quote unquote system is the god awful most corrupt we've see

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

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

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

i have long argued that justice scalia's opinion was deeply misguided. nonetheless, the court has not overruled it in the two decades since it was handed down. the reactions it has sparked as you've heard not only the religious freedom restoration act of 1993 and the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000, but also a welter of judicial decisions at various levels of the federal system testify to the unresolved debate of conscience-based claims against broad legislation. this brings me back to the bishops statement which go well beyond pope benedict in a key respect. while the pope folk uss on claims of conscience, the bishops emphasize the distinction between conscientious objection and an unjust law. conscientious objection permits some relief to those who object to a just law. an unjust law is no law at all. it cannot be obeyed. and the bishops insist that if we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then catholics in america must have the courage not to obey them, close quote. now to my mind, this is a remarkable argument on sev

justice. if they cannot comply with a lawfully executed subpoena then there should be sanctions just like there would be for me or you. so i urge support for representative chaffetz's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. gowdy: yes, madam. the chair: the gentleman from texas. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank madam chairman. i rise in support of this amendment because i'm seeing what i consider to be an alarming trend in government right now. we have hairy in fast and furious, the department of justice failing to cooperate with multiple committees of this congress. mr. farenthold: right now as we speak there is an oversight meeting over the waste and abuse of dollars warehousing security equipment in dallas, texas. we are sitting here today while whistleblowers who are trying to do what's right for this government being retaliated against. families, like agent brian terry, who wa

this was done by the justice department, by the administration. but what we will do is next week we will ask the three or four who spoke that we bring the justice department -- we'll get them to come up here whereby they can sit down with all of you together and your staffs to explain why and see if they can justify this. but i just wanted to be clear, this was not done at the committee's request, this was the justice department -- mr. bishop: will the gentleman yield? mr. wolf: yes. mr. bishop: this was an action by the department and it was not action taken by the committee. however, some of us on the committee have grave concerns about it and we appreciate the chairman's agreement and his willingness to discuss it with the justice department and see if we can't get the situation corrected. mr. wolf: ok, thank you. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- th

four justices on the court, including the chief justice, but it was ok for that justice to sit and hear who had donated $3 million to see to it the justice would be elected. we have a real problem at the state level with judicial elections. it is how elections are conducted. it is money, money, money. >> we will come to your question soon as well. howard, if you could help direct the microphone handlers. position yourself in a place where you can be seen. those of you who have a question, those are the people whose attention you need to get. we will come to your question soon. >> just to underscore what happened in iowa and the other states last election, the retention election was the gold standard for the state courts. it was the best of the good government ideas. now it is gone because of this. >> it is under attack even in places trying to hold onto it, like missouri. >> there is hope this montana case might be an opportunity for the court to reconsider citizens united. the evidence of corruption was so great, and it was a state judicial election, which the supreme court has been mo

decisions in -- >> let me tell you how i met justice stevens. many years ago in albuquerque, new mexico, justice stevens and his wife snuck in to play in a bridge tournament, and one of my partners at the time happily had been his clerk and invited he and his wife and barry and i to dinner. i couldn't even imagine meeting a justice of the supreme court, let alone go to dinner. they felt quite free to tell him what they thought of what he had just played. but at the end of the evening there was a kind of uncomfortable silence and justice stevens finally said to his former law clerk, greg, don't you want to invite me to come to your firm to meet the lawyers in your firm and your law clerks? of course we couldn't imagine having been bold enough to ask him to do that. and so in albuquerque, new mexico, in the summer in a law firm of 21 people, our law clerks thought we were the smartest human beings on the planet. but what happened was even more remarkable. when justice stevens sat down in our very small conference room in the old bank building most

i'm jimmy justice. >> but the man who calls himself jimmy justice won't back down. >> they're afraid of me. >> you're not allowed to do that. >> and they're afraid of my video camera. >> what are you doing? move away from the vehicle. >> i'm filming you breaking the law. >> his goal -- to bring justice, vigilante justice, to the streets of new york, streets on which he says he sees a double standard. >> everybody else gets summonsed the second they break the law. you're in a "no-standing" zone. it's a bus stop. >> so what? >> you would give a ticket to somebody else that did that? >> yes. >> but the people writing those summonses drive around the city like cowboys and do whatever they want, with impunity. and i wanted to bring justice. i wanted to level the playing field. >> it all begins in 2005. a fuse is lit when jimmy justice sees a traffic agent make a u-turn over a double yellow line. in his mind, an obvious violation of the law. he starts reporting the violations he sees to law enforcement by taking still photos. but he says his complaints go nowhere. so he comes up with a pla

we need to satisfy this sense of justice. mr. chairman, i want to satisfy this sense of justice and i support ms. waters' amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: strike the last word. i support the efforts to increase the resources we put into mortgage fraud and we have about $11 million appropriated in the bill in this regard. we need to find more. i'm opposed to these offsets and i don't think the idea that they won't do damage to the nasa program i think is wrong. it's easy to go after nasa, but this broad agreement that the mortgage fraud that took place as evidenced by the settlement that attorney general holder and attorney generals from dozens and dozens of states that are helping to address some of these problems. we will work together to try to find that and i'm going to oppose this amendment as written. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. seeing no further recognition, the question is on the amendment offered by the

attorney general eric holder and the british justice secretary can of. the mystical thank you for being with us and welcome to welcome to the show well. this is a forum that you attended the st petersburg international legal forum it was the second and since last year. well in this period we're there any practical results that we reached the goal because last year you also talked about many things many topics many many problems was something didn't you during these twelve months between the first well thank you for your interest for for the u.n. because we do believe the international are legal forms and could really become some kind of very comfortable very friendly ground for the lawyers from all over the world to discuss different problems of law practice and just to socialize each other to stablish some long term but it's not i'm sure it's not just a club it's a workshop run of the real absolutely but of course we do believe that establishing your links also why it's a very nice idea and what about comparing this event with there. that happened last

justice to. the main ideal the st petersburg legal forum is to provide a dialogue platform for lawyers politicians and economists it was founded by the russian justice ministry and for now is the only event of its kind in scale this year over two thousand people from fifty one countries came to the forum thirteen delegations were headed by top officials including the u.s. attorney general eric holder and the british justice secretary. thank you for being with us and welcome to welcome to the show well. this is a forum that you attended the st petersburg international legal forum it was the second and since last. you know in this period where there is any practical results that we reached the go because last year you also talked about many things many topics many many problems was something didn't you during these twelve months between firms well thank you for your interest for for the u.n. because we do believe the international are legal forms and could have could really become some kind of very

remember, justice delayed is justice denied. a rape kit that is now in storage containers around the nation because law enforcement doesn't have the resources at the local level to pierce the backlog means that prosecutors are not able to prosecute the cases and women remain without justice. women have been brutalized, women who are suffering the devastation of rape, many of whom suffer with the, if you will, the devastation of that act for many, many years. and many of us know that many women ask the question, was it their fault. we move beyond that. but i believe this amendment would at least provide the necessary resources in order to provide the overcoming of this terrible backlog. my colleagues, please help us, please help us render justice and provide for the solving or the piercing of the backlog of rape kits that have not been tested throughout the nation. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair

and the question i think most people are asking, and we want justice in this case. we're pursuing that. we have the department of justice investigation and very much want to see that investigation carried out. not only to make sure that justice is carried forward as far as those responsible for his death, but also as to how the investigation itself was handled. but i think the question that needs to be answered is whether race played a role in trayvon martin being singled out by mr. zimmerman. and that of course would be racial profiling. an area that we all believe we need to get rid of as far as the legitimacy of using racial profiling in law enforcement. in october of last year, i filed the end racial profiling act, and as you pointed out, carrying on from senator feingold's efforts in this legislation. i thank you very much for your leadership as a co-sponsor. we have 12 members of the senate have co-sponsored this legislation including the majority leader, senator harry reid is a co-sponsor. racial profiling is un-american. it's against the values of our nation