Successful and we continue to be here to address any issues that might come up. To the 15th annual is this on 15thium e to the Barbara Olson memorial lecture. And this memorial lecture started, as many of you after 9 11. Ted olsons inaugural lecture reminded us of what it means to an american. How our legal tradition is a critical part of our identity as americans. Both ted, who is here today, and barbara, understood this connection. We want this lecture to remind lawyers of it so they foster advance nciples that individual freedom, personal and the rule of law. Other lecturers have included chief justice roberts, Vice President cheney, sten starr, ginsberg, now justice judge, gorsuch, former attorney general teal, john y, peter alison and two senators. To todays us luckture. Introduce or to Barbara Olson. Mcgann. Use counsel don before the counsel, served as hairman of the fcc around more recently a partner at jones day. The hat prior to joining Trump Campaign as their counsel. He earned his b. A. From notre j. D. From widner. Don has an entrepreneurial spirit that hes brought to verything he does and like barbara, hes made his own way often raising and approaching in an unconventional way, and advocating things because he thought they were right. One of his major interests has been judges. Another is the Administrative State. Which, as this conference shows, and as we heard last increasing is discussion and debate. Don, like cal with barbara, takes the lead in such critical discusses and battles. Typical that he does good h energy, zest and humor. In his work on both judges and dministrative law don is committed to the constitution and its structure and committed through his Public Service to the form of government that, to put in his bosss great. Makes america i am delighted to welcome don mcgann as the 2017 Barbara Olson lecturer. [applause] thank you very much. I think im just going to while im ahead. Thank you. The reception will be across the hall. Its really an honor to be here, to the Barbara Olson lecture. Knew barbara, i believe i actually met her at this hotel during a federal society onvention like this one many, many years ago. And when leonard call and asked if i could do this lecture, i i said, i think you dialed the wrong number. I looked it up, and gene, first thanks for the introduction, but two, he listed all the folks who have given lecture and when you hear calea, roberts and gorsuch, and then me, one of those names is different from rest. Ill just give a hint. Problem with ny truck drivers. Wondering media are what that was about. Really anl society is amazing organization. I have been privileged to be a many years or many, and watch it grow. I remember the first time that i of these ne conferences. It was 1995. I had recently moved to ashington, d. C. , and i didnt really know anyone and very few people would talk to me. A lot of people and very few people still actually want to talk to me. [laughter] met another of people over the years. I remember meeting someone else just moved to d. C. , and the conversation went like this. You just moved to d. C. Yes. What were you doing before . Clerk. As a law oh, did you clerk for 0lito, third circuit, where did you go harvard. , undergrad or law. This was said, oh, alex and now hes secretary of labor. So for the Young Lawyers out never know who youre going to meet. Keep in touch. [laughter] youre ay the person talking to might be white House Counsel and the president may be looking for a secretary of labor. You just never know. And [applause] i havent even gotten to the fun any parts yet. The other thing i remember, and this is the first conference, again, sort of you never know who youre going to meet and i managed to stumble the banquet dinner, predecessor of what we had last night and i recall, it was hall in one of the ballrooms and there was plenty the tables toween navigate. It was not as large as it is now and i was looking around and i heard someone say, there is an empty chair with us and someone grabbed me by the coat sat down and i looked and said hi, im tim the guy from the reagan administration. Wasnt, you know, too long after that. He said, yes, this is gray. We go around and introduce. I will ralist society illuminati. He said, high, im ed meese. Ed meese. Ust like i was in d. C. For maybe only two weeks and i called my mom. Afraid i was in jail. But then she realized, i wouldnt be able to make the call. So i told her all about it. Thought that every weekend in washington, d. C. Was going to be just like that. [laughter] not. Was not even close. You know, but here we are. The past several years for me a very interesting journey. Its been a privilege to be part of a president ial campaign that successful and to have the counsel to ng named the president of the United States. Iowa, as most things do in president ial campaigns, and the memory of iowa was standing in my hotel room in des moines looking iconic window at the skyline, and if you do enough campaigns, its iconic. [laughter] i traded emember, voice messages with someone from society who will remain nameless, so i dont bunch, and wethan finally connected on the phone and i heard they were attempting to get in ut how touch with the Trump Campaign. They had managed to get in touch with the other campaigns but the campaign was kind of lean and mean, and, you know, it with the voters quickly but did not catch on with the political class. Frankly, still hasnt. [laughter] its funny now, but were you then . Ing [laughter] i was. I have substance coming up. Just keep going. So, i get on the phone with the society ederalist person with the initials jb, and he said, hey, you know, i want you. Alk to were trying to get in touch with the Trump Campaign. Out, want to talk about judicial selection. Obviously we arent going to take a position. I aid i understand that dabble in nonprofit tax law. To time. Side note, lois was head of the enforcement years ago, just saying. So i said, oh, im glad you called. We were just talking about judicial selection, and the voice on the other end said, you we actually have somebody in the campaign thats going to help us. H, who, very excited, who is it, former chiefofstaff to president bush, johnson nunnen. He has a lot of experience. There is this [laughter] this deafening pause on the other end of the phone, des moines, the phones went down. Hear on the other side this sort of throaty kind of, well, ts good you have someone helping. I said, yes, its going to be great. He has experience and a proven asked him to come up with a couple of different lists. List we want mainstream folks, not a big paper trail, and, you know, the of folks that, you know, will get through the senate and, feel goodwill make us that we put some pragmatic folks bench. So the voice said, on the other sort of uld hear this gasp. And so i said well have a second list. The second list, we asked him to together some folks, kind of too hot for primetime, the kind senate,uld be hot in the probably people who have written a lot, get a sense of their sure, nd we want to make you know, the kind of people, you understand, that make some people nervous. And he said, oh, okay. To do hat are you going with each list . I said the first list well throw in the trash and the thats who were going to put before the u. S. Senate because i know mcconnell will get it done. [applause] im just going to forget my canned remarks and keep going. Pause, and i this did not know jonathan bunch then now. I know him and, you know, hes he kind stammered and wasnt sure. Wait. Wait. What did you just say . You heard me. Oh. Look, you have nothing to worry about, ive known leonard in the Federalist Society, you have nothing to worry about. Seriously, were already and i rattled it off a couple of names of people for different circuits. Okay. I could just imagine what he called leonard and reported back. A journey an quite that led to mr. Trump, now putting out a , list of potential Supreme Court folks. Really had been done before, in typical fashion, it not done in the primary season to get people to think he more conservative than he was. It came out after he was the nominee, at which point, every person in over. Gton said its cant do that. Got to move to the middle. It will scare people. So it really kind of tells you we are with that piece, and, you know, its really very fortunate to serve a president who is very committed committed to here, hich is nominating and appointing judges that are committed originalists and texturalists. [applause] think i can safely say its not just talk. If you look at who has been already , who has gotten through the senate i think hes made good on what es said and for all the chattering class of d. C. Who thought it was a head fake or it was going to be something different, i think other things weve proven them time, proven them again. Time and time so let me turn to the boring regulation and rule of law in the Administrative State, and then more jokes at the end. My remarks tonight rest on two ideas. Dent but related the greatest threat to the rule of law in our modern society is expanding regulatory state. And the most effective bulwark strong that threat is a judiciary. In some ways executive agencies are as old as the republic. Department, Treasury Department and the department of war were created shortly after the founding. The idea that there are agencies within the executive branch is something that has long, long, long time. It was always understood that would have e branch these departments, article 2, section 2 of the constitution contemplates them. In terms of executive departments led by principle fficers for whom the president may require an opinion in writing on relevant matters. But the modern Administrative State was not constructed to the misguided y on the notion that experts rather than our elected representatives are est suited to govern the nations affairs. Woodrow wilson was the most where he argued for a separation of politics from leading to governing the Big Decisions supposedly above the fray of nonpartisan its logical n to conclusion one wonders why we should continue to have under that way of thinking. Since then, the administrative tate has expanded beyond anyones loudest imagination, to give you just one example, in federal code of regulations, just over 20,000 over 200,000 ts pages. The pervasiveness of federal regulation is unavoidable. Scores of agencies and armies of bureaucrats who claim be socalled independent of president ial control. They claim to be monday partisan of voter ew says ration and the like otherwise. They call president ial politicals and call themselves careers, too often cloistered in the confines of structure. Regulatory its virtually impossible for any individual or business to alone ensure compliance with each of the regulatory andands that these agencies bureaucrats produce. Where does the authority for his vast Administrative State come from . Lets start where we should always start. Constitution. The constitution very clearly vests all government power in three branches. Article one as we know this one, rovides that all legislative power should be vested in a congress of the United States. Article 2, this is the lecture part, article 2 states that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States. Particularly like that one. A judicial power of the United States shall be ested in one Supreme Court and in such from courts as congress from time to time should ordain or establish. The modern administrative system within this system . Many in this room say it does problem is not merelily a formalistic constitutional objection. Unaccountable Administrative State is a direct threat to individual liberty. Its welldocumented that the administrations have one of the worst records before the Supreme Court in American History. Several loss lawsuits were before a unanimous court. N many case agencies were far exceeding their statutory and stuckal authority and in doing intruding on ly individual rights. Just look at some of the most important cases the supreme decided in recent years. Versus lobby lobby, Little Sisters of the poor. Those rose out of administrative action. They were not in the statute. Instead the department of Health Human Services imposed through regulation. Rejected the Agricultures Department requirement raising set aside large amounts of their crops for government use without just compensation. Oral argument the governors attorney insisted this uncompensated of raisins was standard regulation, unquote. The Supreme Court disagreed. Raisins. N all have in michigan versus epa, the court invalidated an that nmental regulation imposed nearly 10 billion in osts per year for only 6 million of benefits. For the eeoc sued a church item naturing a minister that the churchs view had violated a faith of their the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. These are only a few examples but they demonstrate how severe how the courtsnd are an essential check on the expansion of administrative power. None of these is news to people the is room except maybe media. Hello. From its inception there is a reason why President Trump asked me to be his lawyer. From its inception, federalist emphasized the importance of separation of powers, of individual liberty, and that the role of the courts say what the law is, not what the law should be. Span a Society Members wide spectrum of political philosophies and policy preferences. E share a commitment to the rule of law. To the same enduring truths that infused the brilliant designer founding charter that due process matters, that the structure of our government wordss and the meaning of means something. And that an erosion of those principles is a direct threat to individual liberty. Thats why Regulatory Reform and judicial selection are so deeply connectioned. In my view they are the two legal issues that this address. Ation will the president is making fundamental changes to how the state interacts with people and hes selecting judges the law as force written and separate division of powers. It can be summed up in due in the and r individual liberty. The trump vision of the judiciary can be summed up in two words. Originalism and texturallism. [applause] tonight i hope to unpack these ideas and provide some in how the administration is working to advance these principles. Lets begin with the Administrative State. Few years ago, the Supreme Court decided a case called sackett versus epa, many of you, sure, are familiar with it. Youre familiar with the case and the regulatory process that epa inflicted on the sackett family. For those not sure, let me recap the facts. This case, before i do that captures a disturbing clarity of many problems of the modern Administrative State. They purchased land and planned hole on it but as they were preparing the land for construction the epa sent them a order claiming that the sackett construction was prohibited because their land was covered by the clean water act. It was several lots away from any body of water they as rted the land qualified navigable waters and they could not fill the land as necessary to build the home. They ordered the sacketts to estore the land to an epa approved condition or face up to 75,000 per day in fines. Heres the kicker. Epa denied the sacketts an administrative hearing and then argued that they lacked any challenge the epas actions in court. Woodrow wilsons dream of the socalled experts being review had judicial come true. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, on whether the challengeany right to the epas actions in court and the Supreme Court unanimously to a group of d. Lawyers this should seem like a straightforward proposition. Sought to t agency enjoin private individuals from using their personal property imposed a crushing fine. As noted, in a nation that process not to mention private property such treatment is unthinkable. This was just cy standard regulation. The epas authority could not be questioned. So they said. Is not isolated to the epa. It affects all the agencies big small. I had my own encounter during my tenure at the federal election commission. Process ear that due was a foreign concept and i was that. Vocal about businesses were being cutted in secret, and the agency really publicly available procedures that govern both the commission and its staff. He idea of ensuring that those accused of wrongdoing had a meaningful opportunity to be eard by the commission was an anathema to many. To make matters worse some them as viewed independent of the president. According to these folks they decisions ty to make devoid of any statutory let alone constitutional authority. Think about that. Status as an independent agency, as part of what some the Fourth Branch is already under article 2 in the constitution and the Supreme Court had he will that the was nal structure unconstitutional in in a case. Somehowins ulated and was under no obligation, the commission itself went too far. In their mind they were a fifth branch of the government independent from the independent agency and accountable to no one who had been elected by the citizens they sought to regulate. This is not isolated but seems be business as usual in theed may have state. Of free example, case enterprise versus Public Accounting oversight board. Here the Supreme Court held that the pca, original appointment structure, was unconstitutional because its removed only be for cause by commissioners who themselves were removable only for cause. The judges opinion in d. C. Circuit seized on this double for cause removal protection as separation of powers and the Supreme Court agreed with him. D. C. Circuit. These are the problems, and the problems the current facing across is the government. Agencies have an obligation to parties due ted process including an opportunity to be heard. Agencies must be accountable to elected head of the executive branch and they should skepticism, not nonchalant. The first step in sprooefring liberty is to insist on fair notice. The government has an obligation to clearly inform parties of the will apply to them. Anyone who is engaged with the state in the last several decades knows that agencies have often taken approach. The opposite far too often agencies issue vague regulations or in some all. , no regulations at then they interpret those interpretivehrough rules or Dear Colleague letters. Law experts, ive these are known as sub regulatory actions. But whatever you call them, they illegitimate. Typically they receive no Public Comment aumpbd they come with no before the ing agency suddenly springs them on parties. Agencies have often managed to duck judicial review of such sub actions claiming they are not final, binding rules but hey are inconsistent with the rule of law. Mra [applause] there is no way for regular businesses to l keep up with the constant flood and sub regulatory action that is power out of the state. This nontop spigot is a problem its own right. Even when agencies announce the rules those rules are buried in undreds of thousands of pages in the federal register. Moreover the sub regulatory nderbelly is indicative of the massive nondelegation problem lurk, in the modern Administrative State. The r than exercise legislative power, this invests in chuaykong almost gives it to the executive branch. Concedes awayiary the judicial power that the constitution vests in it by deferring to agencys of what ations congresss vague statutes of the regulation state. Making lt is all policy authority is shifted to the Administrative State and its ctions are left largely unreviewed. In the 10th circuit, justice orsuch said it much more eloquently than anyone could. Chevron, quote, fact is and brand excommit executive ureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power that way that seems more than a to square with the constitution of the framers design. To face time has come bevilacqheme moth. [applause] i knew, quoting gorsuch would me found is. So on behalf of him thank you for applauding his words. That the Supreme Courts decision in humphreys executive for which held that congress can limit the to remove Authority Agency heads and many of the most significant policy ecisions and legal rules lie entirely in the hands of unelected and unaccountable agencies. Of kratsz whose claims being nonpartisan are modern egulatory system makes a mockery of the system of checks and balances that our founders put into the constitutional design. The framers separated government power, both between the branches and between the state and to ral governments in order preserve liberty. When we tinker with the design our freedom. H when we abandon the design altogether, we invite this sort regulatory despotism that the acketts experienced and which gorsuch so eloquently criticized. Although the threats posed by the modern Administrative State unprecedented in American History they are rooted in intellectual struggle thats for a very long time. Whether one looks at the various thought in hools of greek philosophy, the difference between the american an french revolutions, the theme is clear. Basically e you see two ways of viewing how we govern ourselves. Where folks employ socalled experts to make the Big Decisions, and others, its system a constitutional where the people actually govern. Our founders knew this. The corrupt ability of man. Deep skepticism of centralized ower resulted in a constitutional system consciously decided to restrain, not enlarge federal governments authority. Madison explained that the separation of powers safeguards ambition setting against ambition. He famously said no government would be necessary. Is a government administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. The ust first enable government to control the governed and in the next place oblige to it control itself. Were founding principles inverted during the expansion of the Administrative State during century, of the 20th and they have been mocked and abandoned by the modern state fashionably call themselves the progressive movement. Rather than protect citizens the people can thrive only through government. Socalled agencies, independent experts have become the panacea for social ills. Underlying principle the Supreme Courts decision which held contrary to the plain text of article 2, they must yield to the Protection Congress of granted to the heads socalled independent agencies. Ts the principle underlying that notion, that has courts deferring to agencies interpretation of the statutes administer. Ions they and its the basis for the Supreme Courts troubling fcc verse chinnery, to h has empowered agencies issue retro active regulations. A doctrine thats empowered announce new rules during Enforcement Actions without fair notice of the parties being regulated. The problem on saw instantly speaking a dissent. Review it makes judicial of administrative orders a hopeless formality for the little gant even were it granted to him by congress. It reduces the judicial process faint. Cases to a mere he said that the thinking would would put most administrative executive orders administrative orders and above the law. Compared that to one, where the court said, before transactions, otherwise legal can be outlawed or denied, the usual business consequences, they must fall the ban of some standards of congress prescribed by an agency of government authorized such standards. One, not two. Anner [applause] fundamental shifts in our government structure are justified to protect the health, welfare of the people. We all want to be healthy happy be safe but i submit we can though things without abandoning the founding principles which make us free so what can be done change the roegt tore culture . For starters, burdensome rules and regulatoryed costs can be reduced. One of the president s first enforcing rders was the regulatory form agenda. Section one of the order very lainly declares it is the policy of the United States to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American People. The order goes on to require each agency to designate a some tory reform officer, calm them roos because in washington, d. C. We always need acronyms, these folks are charged with carrying regulatory idents initiatives so there is a line of accountability wean the agencies and the white house 2 sist tonight with article declaration that the executive power shall be vested in the president. One of the president s other orders was ive entitled reducing regulation and regulatory costs. It is two critical elements. Irst, for every significant regulation it must identify two existing regulations for elimination. Not only does this discourage regulation, but it forces agencies to clean out the regulatory sediment thats built over decades. Act sis must control the regulatory cost that rules on the country by conducting Economic Analysis of their actions an offsetting any least as much at cost saving deregulatory actions. He goal is not to maintain the status quo but to drive down the costs imposed by previous administrations excesses. About the judiciary. These efforts to reform the with tory state begin congress and the executive branch but they ultimately depend on courts that are laws g to enforce the enacted by congress and the structural limits imposed by our constitution. This administrations mandate is clear. Hoose justices in the mold of scalea, and now gorsuch. [applause] impact ce scaleas cannot be overstated. Consists d us the law of the people, those words must would rpreted as they have been understood by the public at the time of their enactment. Meetings, be no secret no hidden agendas harbored in lawmaker. Of the justice thompsons opinions are the driving intellectual force behind so many of trumps legal regulatory principles. In 2015, Justice Thomas issued impressive set of dissents setting forth his view of the modern Administrative State. Reading be required for all law students. Opinions in g michigan versus epa, advanced critiques its inconsistent with the separation of powers. Justice stevens, author of the seven ron decision, it, equently had critiqued so this is not an issue thats particularly aligned with one other. R the or one school of thought or the other. In ice thomass concurrence the amtrak case called for the nondelegation doctrine to be meaningful enforced. Acquiescence of congresss unconstitutional transfer of legislative to the Administrative State. And industries rejected the issued by decisions Administrative Law tribunals could have an effect on lawsuits federal court k. Even in this arrest contain area, ustice thomass vision was clear. The constitution investors the judicial power in the judiciary, agencies. Ive branch regarding both justice scalea they are the very bedrock of due process, fair notice and the rule of law and thomass opinion demonstrates those principles are missing in our current Administrative State. N my view the two issues are one and the same. Just as regulate tore agencies train their actions, judges must enforce those statutory limits. Must s sergeant sis provide due process to parties ike the sacketts, judges must faithfully enforce the constitutions structural protections which exist to liberty and vidual personal property rights. And justice agencies owe the rules,fair notice of the courts must interpret statutes and the constitution as the ublic would understand them according to the plain meaning of the text. Ue process, fair notice, original nationalism and texturallism. Thats what this is all about. Originalism and texturallism. Justice scaleas tragic death front and ssues center in the 2016 election. In my life tomb i cant remember election that turned so critically on the role of judges. The president knew this which is hy he issued his list of candidates for the Supreme Court. He wanted the American People to know exactly the type of justice select. You may have missed it but it came out recently the president refreshing at hes his list of potential supreme public, minees, so its and if i could just beg for your added five names to the list. Barrett, she was recently confirmed. [applause] circuit. Seventh and the dogma moves loudly in her. [applause] to the folks over there, in the firmation hearing, senator the Ranking Member senator einstein actually commented about now judge barrett saying [inaudible] dogma is on the list. [laughter] grant, who is a Supreme Court justice in georgia. [applause] hes on the list. Cavanaugh [applause] hes winning on the applause meter. Newsome, recently confirmed to the eleventh circuit. Patrick [cheers] think im just going to throw in my notes and go back to y opening but im almost done with the boring part. So what do the judges on the list have in common . They have a demonstrated commitment to original nationalism and texturallism. Have paper trails, sitting judges, there is nothing unknown about them. What you get. S its not enough to say the right things in public speeches. Apply those principles in concrete cases. Good judges follow the law, even hen their decisions are unpopular. Mra [applause] courage, its as important as judicial independence. [applause] the president is looking for same traits in lower court especially on appeals. He wants smart judges that will as written. W the interview process is like interview clerkship except with folks in the white House Counsels office. We never ask them questions substantive issues but they are pushed and prodded from every angle to get a sense as to method they would employ as a judge and whether they possess the fortitude to enforce the without fear of public pressure. Of course, the president s power to dominate is only half the battle. Been actively engaging with the senate since day one. Ive spoken to or requested to to every single sitting senator. Not all want to speak to me. More than once, about judicial appointments in their states. One thing thats missed from folks who just read the text of the constitution is that the president gets to make nominations. Forget the part about the consent clause, senate over decades has developed various customs that empower home state senators to have a big say particularly in district courts. For those wondering request we nominate youth we ake very seriously the obligation to consult with the senate, and we painstakingly ensure that every senator has an to provide input on judicial nominees. The first thing i tell each were happy to interview them and strongly consider anyone they recommend. Some never take us up on this and many tell a different story to the press. But were moving quickly to fill existing judicial vague can sis. [applause] vacancies. Chairman grassley and his teem have done an outstanding ob moving the president s judiciaryo the senate committee. [applause] candidly, chairman grassley credit for enough this. Rk on but the majority leader is really the one thats created opportunity. A number of vacancies that were on the table, when the president was unprecedented. And the courage that mitch showed to make that happen was tremendous and we all a debt of gratitude. Not to be outdone hes made this his number one priority and hes elivering the number of nominees that are being confirmed is tremendous. The floor g to burn times, speak in the senate very vernacular. They want full debate, even those passing 980. Favortate senators are in of the nominee and the like. Our opponents of judicial frequently claim the president has outsourced his selection of judges, that is false. Ely i have been a member of the law alist Society Since school. Still am. I seems like its been insourced. [applause] but seeking advice from leonard and many members of the Federalist Society, not judicial g the selection process, fact is we all share the same vision of the udicial role and we welcome input from many sources. Many of us in this room became bjork era. The post i did. We understand the importance of weve l selection and seen first hand the lengths to which others will go to tarnish be men and on of women. Ive already mentioned earlier this year the situation that fronted now judge barrett, prominent democrat uggest that she couldnt be trusted because shes a practicing catholic. On kfully shes now a judge the second circuit. Mra [applause] gregs hearing had the tone spanish inquisition. Hes been voted out of the committee and im confident confirmed to the d. C. Circuit. [applause] i have to clap for that one. His want to thank greg for service. My work invaluable to in the white house, and, its really an honor to have been work with him and be a him, senate ng willing, go to the next level. [applause] speaking of outsourcing, there is a different sort of outsourcing thats very real and should be troubling to all of us. Dur our efforts to consult with senators on potential nominees, often told that the senators have socalled commissions back in their home tate, that recommend judicial candidates to them. And these senators sometimes nsist that they cannot support anyone on their commission sorry, cant support anyone not commissions do interview and ultimately recommend but i have never heard the judicial commissions clause in the constitution. [applause] the constitution says president appoints judges with the advice and consent of the senate. Commission composed of plaintiffs, lawyers and others who have business before the they will have hearings in front of. The problems with this practice are strikingly similar problems we face with the Administrative State. No one elected the members of these commissions. No real accountability to congress or to the president. Yet some senators want to power to o them the select or reject candidates for Lifetime Appointments to the bench. L and who are the typical members of these commissions . The very lawyers who will be the judges efore they have been tasked with selecting. Thats the outsourcing problem real. s very there is american bar association. [grumblings] to told you i was going come back to the good stuff. Whatsoever in le the President Trump [applause] enough said. [laughter] obstacles were very pleased with the quality and pace of our nominations, hen the president took office there were over a hundred federal judicial vague can sis Supreme Court in. 10 months the president had nominated over 70 judges. Confirmed, nearly 50 are currently pending in the senate. Dozens more are in the process nominated shortly, early next year we expect a significant number of additional nominations. We know how important these appointments are to you and how important they are to the rule of law. We thank you for your support in this effort. In closing, this convention has been a celebration of the Federalist Society success. Not only did we celebrate the commit asked the originalists to the Supreme Court, but in the tradition of he federal society, weve debated the most important legal questions facing our nation. Restore the rule of law, separation of powers and individual liberty in the face administrative behemoth . I want to thank the federalist topic this year. The idea of a rigorous debate over the role of administrative could not be more timely. Its been beneficial to us, in a moment, i feel that many of my hair brain ideas on Administrative Law are being this week by very serious people. Its an honor to be a part of its an honor to have ben a member of the federal society for many, many years. The opportunity to speak tonight. And thank you to everyone at the Federalist Society for making so this possible. Thank you. [applause] thank you so much. I suspect among other things barbara would be very proud of see ted nodding. Thank you, thank you for your service. That concludes the lecture. We have the reception. Its across the hall, is that right . The reception for those who have signed up for that is across the hall. Appreciate yall coming and thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable Satellite Corp 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] been voices] [indistinguishable voices] the organizers of the january 21 womens march on washington reconvened for the first time in late october in detroit. This saturday night well show you a portion of the event womensng a panel on the movement. And a keynote address by california congresswoman maxine waters. Here is some of her speech. Theo forward this day that the women at this convention and all across the country have had enough. Enough is enough. It we are not going to take it anymore. Enough is enough. We are waging our own war against rape and Sexual Harassment. We are waging a war against the perverts, that we can be misused or exploited in the interest of the job or recognition, or even socalled love. Today, we declare that we are not taking it anymore. Today, we declare that we will not tolerate, ignore, or be part of a culture that turns a blind eye to Sexual Harassment and violence. We dont care who you are, how much money you have, how powerful you are, and how you think you are powerful. Keep your nasty comments away from us. Keep your tricks and your lies to yourself. Your hands off the backs of our goddamn bodies. You can watch the rest of the speech from the Womens Convention in detroit right here on cspan saturday at 8 p. M. Eastern. This weekend, cspans cities tour takes you to burlington, vermont. And with the help of cable partners, we will explore the literary scene and history of burlington that sits on the shores of lake champlain. Mahers and cartoonist Jeff Danziger discussed the full vermonte. Vermont in the age of trump. Because vermont voted for Hillary Clinton in greater numbers than any other state, and remember its a small state. It doesnt amount to that much. But the numbers were impressive so we wanted to put together a book where people in the state answered the question, what do we do now . Charge . In my view, against most of the valleys and characteristics that vermonters have