i'm ralph nader. it's often said information is the currency of democracy but really it's a lot more than that. as it matures into knowledge and then into judgment, it becomes the raison d'ctre of free speech, petition and assembly. it also is a basis for sound legislative policy . for regulatory policymaking, for the public's access to justice or government and corporate accountability. there was an example there by the way early on when we obtained reports from the department of agriculture on nursing homes inspections which of course unleashed a lot of media and helped enact legislation. so there's always that nexus that we have to be aware of in our recognition of the importance of freedom of information act . at the federal or state level. looking back in the 1974 and before in the years of struggle it's really remarkable how how how omnipresent the opposition to any freedom of information legislation by the executive branch agencies in congress who is almost unanimous. they all had their hobbyho

for those of you who litigate it hearkens back to ralph nader. we need a ralph nader right now. we need people to come up with some creative high impact litigation to force the courts to make the statute true to what congress intended. one possible vehicle that some of us, more and more people are using is the idea of getting creative and we need to get creative on a fundamental level. courts you are shifting the burden and away that is directly contrary so we should be thinking is there a law that we could bring? i know there are a lot of creative and smarter minds than me in this room and i urge you to think about that because i think we have to start pushing back not just an individual case-by-case basis where we are fighting for a specific document that we have to think about some of the cases that allan talked about the broader indices that forces the court to make the statute work in a way with what congress intended. consistent with all of these intents that thomas susman described. i don't want my cynicism to overshadow my report for what was intended by the amendment be

ralph nader was assigned in his black suit to play the role of umpire. anyway, they they had they broke bread together and nader became enamored with carter because he was apparently completely open to taking his advice on who to appoint to various positions in the government. you know, he he, for instance, got joan claybrook and put put her in as director of the auto safety board and, you know, ralph nader, of course, was famous for his first book on the dangers of of the automobile. and joan claybrook, you know, was the woman who pushed through seatbelts and airbags and and, you know, so carter would and she wasn't the only sort of nader ite who was appointed there were literally dozens of them. and his whole point was that he wanted to, as a as president, he wanted to use his office in in the interest to protect consumers and, you know, this cut both ways. so you talk about airline deregulation. you know, this helped consumers. it allowed middle class americans to travel, but it also destroyed erupted big business and the airline industry opening up th

for those of you who litigate it hearkens back to ralph nader. we need a ralph nader right now.e need people to come up with some creative high impact litigation to force the courts to make the statute true to what congress intended. one possible vehicle that some of us, more and more people are using is the idea of getting creative and we need to get creative on a fundamental level. courts you are shifting the burden and away that is directly contrary so we should be thinking is there a law that we could bring? i know there are a lot of creative and smarter minds than me in this room and i urge you to think about that because i think we have to start pushing back not just an individual case-by-case basis where we are fighting for a specific document that we have to think about some of the cases that allan talked about the broader indices that forces the court to make the statute work in a way with what congress intended. consistent with all of these intents that thomas susman described. i don't want my cynicism to overshadow my report for what was intended by the amendment beca

and also i spoke to ralph nader yesterday. there was consumer protection. carter came in and started talking to consumer activists. it was still in the air then that the consumers had these sort of rights. carter was the last president to do that. and civil rights, jimmy carter was all about and the appointment of women and blacks into the administration was heroic and it predated bill clinton and predated barack obama. >> we see now the presidential motorcade approaching the washington national cathedral, which is packed with thousands of washington dignitaries. a short moment ago we saw just in the front row there at least four of the supreme court justices, amy c amy coney barre. this is called hearst circle, but they're bringing the hearse up to the front steps of washington national cathedral. nancy cordes is there. i know she's smiling. she knows that circle well. that's our neighborhood. nancy, describe what you're seeing. >> reporter: norah, the hearse has just pulled up directly behind us at the steps of the washingto