sahar would you begin? >> good afternoon.y question is how does one balance their own personal opinions on a case but at the same time try to remain objective with the law and legal precedence? is there a balance between the two or are they distinguishably different? >> well, let me start with a realization that you have to have as a judge. what are laws? laws are the society's definition of how it will balance the competing interest of people. so the first example that i give everyone is a law that affects every single person in this room when they go outside. you go to the corner, you stop at the red light. why? there's a law that tells you if you don't, you're going to get a ticket. all right? so why do we have that law and what is it doing? it's taking a bit of every person's time, putting it into a pool and saying, you can't get to where you want to go as fast as you would like. you can't push penal out of the way. you can't injury them to reach your goal. everybody stops at the red light, gives us time, so that society

but the hotel, like sub-sahar sub-saharan -- sub-saharanubseq burned down. the boom of the 1800s, or the 1880s was relatively short-lived and didn't last too long. toward the end of the 1880s it fizzled out and the tiles were not so good. but people came up still and visited arrowhead spring. the resort was promoted less as a health resort and more as a recooperation and rest resort. they always had a full medical staff on facility here for the visitors that would come to arrowhead springs. the second arrowhead spring was enlar enlarged and got bigger and better. in 1859, the second hotel burned down due to what they called mishandled fireworks. burned down on july 4th, 1895. after the second hotel burned, remember the boom area of the 1880s was over and the economic time was difficult when the second hotel burned. so after the second hotel burned, the property wad idle for ten years but folks in the san bernardino knew of the spring and the worth and were not happy the resort was gone and nothing was here to draw the folks back up as a resort. but in 1904,

sahar. [ applause ] >> there we go. all right. thank you so much for inviting me today. it's great to be back in georgetown. i was actually an adjunct here. it's great to see so many other colleagues. and i'm really impressed with the turnout today, not only in terms of number of people, but diversity in background. i'm glad we have advocates keeping us in check. what i want to talk about today, much of it is in an article, so i can't go into the details which is why i cited it. i want to talk about the way in which the relationship between the war on drugs affected the war on terror and the war on terror is now boomeranging back into what i think is still a war on drugs and drugs implicitly is a war on blacks and terror implicitly is a war on muslims. i realize that's a very provocative statement. but if you look at the way these so-called domestic wars are being enforced, the data is clear if you look at the names of the defendants and their identities. so after -- in britain, after they had experienced terrorist attacks, this is a quote that the americans then adopted