comparemela.com

Whats coming up in the nations highest court. Two attorneys who argued before the court and alice who covered the justices. They talk about how chief Justice John Roberts might handle the impeachment trial in the senate. Welcome today. We are going to look ahead and maybe back but probably i had. On the correspondent for National Public radio. If you dont know who these people are in detail, looket it up. [laughter] weve had 25 years and we are all big talkers. This is the former technically, where the acting general but he acted for a long time. Will do. Crawford, chief Legal Correspondent for cbs news. She knows politics as well and paul, who was the general of the u. S. And before that, deputy so he was there a long time. They went a lot and lose occasionally but they are both very good advocates. So i will start by talking about news. The two cases for the Supreme Court pending, waiting for the justices to say what are we going to do with them, one is from a d. C. Circuit and they will one Congress Asked for information from President Trumps Accounting Firm related to whether or not they want to pass legislation that would require disclosure of the president s taxes and the circuit said yes, you have the right to do that because of elegislation. Then theres a second from new york, a state case where actually, a city case. District attorney fromth manhatn has issued a grand jury for the same kinds of material but f ths time its related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and perhaps one other person, im not sure. Th they upheld that subpoena for criminal investigation. They are both up at the Supreme Court and the Trump Lawyers asked the court to stop those subpoenas from being forced. So the question now is, will they stay, preventing those things from going into effect . And, with a grant, or they hear the case or cases . Let me go straight down the line here. I will ask each of you what you think we should do. Im glad i got in through the back door today. Ar i think we are taking the request from the president saying here my case, they generally hear the case. I think this is that they wouldnt take the case. They are probably pretty happy with the careful reasoning by the two lower courts opinions. The trump briefs are pretty extreme in their views so i think it might be better for the court to stay out altogether. I would say i kind of agree with neil. The Justice Kavanaugh was on the court, its extremely quiet. The justices had high profile controversial issues whether the hours by design to take the court out of the conversation, the justices say its not. This time is very different. This term, they are taking up almost every issue. We end tv and what we cover, the ones that make the headlines will be about gun rights, they are going to be about abortion and social issues. Immigration issues. They are all on the basis here. They are a concern for some of the justices this term already including the chief justice. The court is not part of the conversation going into 2020. Theres a current by some of the justices that Court Packing is very much on then minds of a lot of different president ial contenders. There is an effort to try to kind of lesson this court being a part of the conversation. Resolve cases where they can, no big defenses opinions on some of these cases. So be that as it may, this would be one where they could take it. I agree withh neil on that. You cant tell if its too soon, too of the court and we want to predict them based on arguments but we cant do that anymore. Id like to be with you i forgot to say that, too. [laughter] im really happy to be here. Ac in 1988 graduate, ive been a fan of the organization. I took the long way around but its a delight to be here. It will make it more interesting, i think theres a decent chance the court will in fact take the circuit case. It arises in a purely federal policy. Thats the most once they are interested in and carrying the Second Circuit case along with it. They resolved the federal case. I say that mostly because i think theres something its something to the extent that there is protection in the divisional capacity. Those accused historically its a circuit split. If you go back to the famous quinton b jones case, the court took that case involving clintons immunity from a private title vii that arose out of an incident out of the hotel. They took that case up. I think a lot of people, because the court took it, excited about the prospect that they might be creatinged immunity and in the end, they decided 920 against the president. I think this is context where the court almost added different to the institution of the presidency might take this case but i think if they did, it would be mistake to view the fact that they took the case as a precursor to them ruling in favor President Trump and i think in that respect, the clinton case may be a bit of a verdict or as well. One thing i say i might push back, over all justices concern to me, the institution of the Supreme Court and unlike in the 1990s where you had a regular president who didnt go and attack every time a decision had come out, here you have a president whos very comfortable doing exactly that, including justice. So i would think maybe the better case would be to stick together and not invite that backlash against the president. I could make the. Counterargument since in the normal course, the court might grant in a case like this the best way to try to reassert normalcy is to take the case like you would otherwise do and rule the way you might otherwise rule. I think if you look at the. Reporter president s, the present argument would be the right way to describe it. If you did all that in the end, what ultimately the message you want to send which is, we will behave the way we would handle this kind of issue at anyny othr time in history. Well see. In order to do that, this is all the context of the Election Year which makes it even more dicey. By tradition, if i can, we would like to avoid doing that. Im not sure that still exists but certainly they postponed in part because there wasnt an election coming up. The question is, what about this term . There doing that, im not sure, im not one of these people who follows every day thats left, that it can dead end this term. A proposed schedule that would have it. A term when theyve already got a number of these extremely controversial social issues. If there. If they are going to do it, they say lets hear it. The nixon case went on very fast scheduled with the First District court, Supreme Court heard the case two months later in 15 days after that. Start to finish under three months. So other than that, was it lincoln . Let me start with you, paul. You have at least two or maybe more of the cases, one is the gun rights case. They will argue the monday after thanksgiving but theres also i the very unsexy but incredibly important place involving the Consumer Financial protectionpo board. I dont know if i got that right. The board that was created under president obama, its unlike other agencies that has only one head. O and Justice Kavanaugh as a lower court judge, he thought that was unconstitutional. So hes in a very unusual position because the Trump Administration has abandoned the structure of the board. Theres nobody to defendant so the Supreme Court appoints somebody to defendant. Enter, paul. So could you talk about why this is an important case and how different it is because i dont believe youve ever been before the Supreme Court without applying. I feel very empowered because this happens from time to time usually in lower cases and where the government decides they cant defend the judge to the t courtroom to appoint a lawyer to defend the judge. Thats essentially what happened here but its a much more high profile case so often there are more typical case. My moment had passed to give for Something Like this. It is empowering because i literally have no clients. Our thinking about your have to open up a new client matter your have to run a conflict check on the client and the answer is no. I dont have a client. Its like i was thinking about the process of putting my brief together and in every other case ive had, i have to build in like a week to let the client review the brief. Its this brief 30 seconds before so its very empowering. Let me say why i think this is an important case. Its an important case because the specific question in the case is whether or not the removal provision for the head of the cfpb which is a cause removal provision is constitutional. Thats one of these things its like, the issue in this case is like the thread ons the sweater, if you start tugging on it and tugged on it hard enough, potentially the whole sweater comes undone and the sweater here really is the entirety of the independent agencies and so on, the whole alphabet soup of tencies that all have productions and they typically alluded to also have multi member bodies so its all six members that have protection in the like but there are a lot of institutions in this town that are very familiar to the operation of government that have these protections, the ones that talked about its a great place to have discussions that recan, if i knew exactly where e are in the board building, i could point. It has this kind of protection in the Federal Reserve is a great example of why congress imposes these kind of restrictions because there are tertain issues in the world that we deal with at the National Level where it nice to have a degree of insulation for a particular duty or responsibility where its not going to just change with weber is present. For a fairly longo time now, Monetary Policy is being something i shouldnt just change in a way with each administration that would be more consistent with having every member at the reserve board to serve as president. The court obviously decides this case in a way that says this particular provision is unconstitutional but nothing else is really called into question that wouldnt be that easy, i dont think to decide. If anything, if the ultimate question is how much control does the president need to have over an agency, it seems to me a little weirdge because the distinctions say its okay to have six people that serve with protection rather than one because i think if the president were to remove somebody, it would easier to do it to one person than to recompose the whole body so if the constitutional value is somehow you cant insulate these agencies too much from the executive branch, it seems like if anything it would cut the other way. Its a case worth watching because its not just about thea agency, its really about our government and whether you can even have these agencies that are more insulated from the president because i think some of the justices think that insulation is itself problematic. S you argued last year that they adopted your provision plaster, looking forward, theres a huge what we are seeing undeniably, is a shift on the court. They accelerated in the 50s and 60s when the value of separation between church and state but that was the lone star that everybody was aiming for. Today its much more an accommodation between church and state and if you talk lawyer talk, you talk separation of church and state is not establishing a religion and try to prevent anything that would help religion and on the other side, now much more accentuated is the free exercise of dligion. I do think our society is moving in the direction of much more accommodating to religion. It set up a wall between a very strong robust wall between church and state, that led to a bunch of the lower courts over the last year that i thought was pretty indispensable. They ordered the tearing down of the piece across which is a 32 cross elected in commemorating the soldiers fallen in world war one. I thought that was ridiculous. We asked them to hear the case and the Supreme Court agreed the cross should stay. You can have religious symbols and it can acquire other meanings to commemorate these fallen soldiers. I think the court is now moving instead of those five to four decisions into something that is closer to seven in general. I think they have more accommodating, specifically. Outfit very quickly, its the latest in this long line of cases involving essentially school factors and a broad rubric for these cases. This one involves a structured, its more about tax credit. I dont think that matters at the end of the day. The question is essentially, when a state sets up a program to allow this, are they actually by the federal constitution to include religious schools in the program or can i limit it by the terms of their own state constitution to just private schools and essentially exclude the religious schools or does it constitute discrimination on the basis of religion . This illustrates the fact that this is a. How the court has moved overtime because with the cases, there were slowercaseletter that said you cant have a Voucher Program at all because even the indirect provision of state aid through the decisions of parents, its still too much of a link between religion and state. The Supreme Court in the case about 15 years ago overruled that and said if they want to can include religious schools within their voucherit program d not violate the federal clause. Now weve moved all the way to asking the question if they will have a Voucher Program in all, do they have to include religious schools to avoid recrimination on the basis of religion based in the free exercise clausesc works as has moved in ae much more accommodationist direction and at the same time, the activity has moved from the establishment clause prohibits favoring religion two, does the free exercise clause essentially mandate that you not discriminate . We discussed not only immigration cases, weve got a portion and gun rights, youve heard about the religionn case. Im lgbtq rights. Weve got a lot of stuff here. The court has tried for so long to keep the cap on the bottle and now its just overflowing. I think thats true in some cases because as i said last term, its a very quiet Supreme Court and justice, was on. If you look back, weve had blockbuster terms before where there were five or six incredibly controversial issues. That is i unusual, i think whats interesting about this year in the Supreme Court and this court in particular is that its still a court in transition. The Supreme Court obviously we have a relatively new justice. There is great hope and conservatives that Justice Kavanaugh will bill a more reliable conservative vote then Justice Kennedy was. Theres great hope that course which will be a conservative voice. There is great fear also. Trump might get anothern nomination which by the way, Justice Ginsburg is back at wo work. She is as active as ever during oral arguments. To me, she looks like but other than that, her voice is strong. She seems completely i mean, her. She had three or four weeks of every day radiation this summer and then 11 Public Events in septembe. When i heard 11, most of them were multiple event so she goes summer. I did one with her where i interviewed her in little rock, arkansas, it was sold out with 15000 people. You see this little person in the middle and i warned them that they had to migrate really close. You could hear a pin drop. It was an amazing phenomenon. I cant quite explain. Ive known her for a very long time but i cant explain this except to say that i think people, baby young women in particular want to have a living hero. That has been so relatively ra rare, its been a long time since Justice Oconnor was on the court. Thats as close as i can come to the explanation. I dont think anyone will be leaving the court, certainly Justice Ginsburg seems to be in good health but its the court that still waiting to emerge. Its almost like if you look at the court, i try your member the polaroid texture, kids these days dont know about that but its a little blurry and takes a while for the picture to emerge, what kind of justice is Justice Kavanaugh going to be . Initially, the first, his first year he was chief justice, that changed quite a bit. He became one of the most liberal justices. I dont think that will happen with these two justices but i think its a mistake now when people try to predict what the Supreme Court will do. Its too soon. We make it more g but argument s changed with Justice Kennedy. It seems to be a time when justices would ask questions of these people like these twowo gs to try to get Justice Kennedys vote. You could really tell where the justices were going. The questions were important because they are trying to sway justice can be. That has changed now. Without Justice Kennedy, the composition argument, its different. And you get to talk in the beginning now. I think the other members of the court understood they were interrupting people so much, the council couldnt have a moment to make aiv comprehensive argumt so now they have two minutes at the beginning in which counsel is allowed to speak on interrupted. There have been a couple of interruptions because they forgotte but two minutes is actually a lot longer than you think. Especially when youre used to bringing in the court when literally i dont know how many of you have been to an argument but when you get up there to argue, within a nano second, Justice Oconnor used to be immediately the one thrown out. The biggest change is that you used to spend a lot of time thinking about what your first three sentences work. Thats all you are going to get out. Now you have to thinknk about three paragraphs you will get out. Two minutes doesnt sound like a lot but given what we had grown used to, this is an exponential expansion. N. Ive had one argument under the new regime, it was argument that very much lent itself to this because a couple of different theories, i could winld little,i could win big andll the two minutes allowed me to lay out a menu and having played out the menu, the rest of the argument could direct the questions back to the original menu in a way i think is more effective than if i had justec gotten interrupted. Classically a Supreme Court argument starts with a lawyer coming up and sayingh at the beginning of their argument, i have three points and get halfway through the first. Then you will never discover the other points. It allows you to lay out pieces of your case quickly. Half an hour each side, i average 60. 8 questions in a 30 minute argument. So, every 30 seconds basically given a question. S it gives us more time. I think with kennedy gone, the argument has changed. The chief justice loves playing devils advocate. They watch what he says and they think hes winning this way or that way. These are just people trying to ask the hardest questions on the other side of the advocate. I can neverer really figure out where they are going. The old argument when kennedy was gone, it wasnt just the justices pitching the questions, there was all the advocate. They were so focused this one spot on the court. Now i feel like its much more. Exercise in which you are making the best arguments for your side and not favoringma toward one vote. Im supposed to turn this over now to the members whether questions and you are all invited to join this conversation. A reminder, this is on the record, wait for the microphone to come around. You can stand and state your name and let her rip. Larry meyer. It seems to me that the cases are more predictable than you have suggested. With achieved justices fit, not for public and democraticr justices, it doesnt seem to work the way it is. Usually this is very challenging because the composition of the court changes and president has to become the important. A lot of these things will be overturned and it will have changed. Sometimes i think thats right, some things are predictable or more predicable than others but i do think that focus is a more general working for the court. Two years ago they were unanimous in 60 of the cases. Four years ago, 66 . You have to go back to the 40 40s. Sometimes we hop on once. I had Citizens United to. The question in the case the year after was, do corporations have privacy rights . They will be protectable decisions. The law has an exceptionas for personal privacy. They stood up and said an exception for personal privacy, corporations, look at the dictionary act. The first coat, companies have privacy rights. The chief justice immediately interrupted and said the word is personal, not person. D the lawyer said on the how that makes a difference and they said what about squirrel, squarely. Craft, crafty. The lawyer for the a company didnt have an answer to that. So the chief justice writes an opinion of the Court Unanimously siding against the companies and they dont have privacy rights. We trust at t will not take it personally. [laughter]st so. That is pretty humorous. I dont thank you are right, somebody who spends all of their time or way too much of it anyway, thinking about the court and how they decide cases. I dont think the way he described this, i think that justices care more about seven or eight of them, then the iquestion suggests, i do think theres less predictable but the premises of the question, i think they highlight the court has a real challenge right now. They have nine justices, five appointed by president of one party, for by president of another party in the president appointed them in the justices himself have differences about how they thank you should go about interpreting the constitution that ends up dividing in the highest profile hot button issues along the lines of the president that appointed them. Its very easy for the public that used to practicing Everything Else in political terms to say the five conservatives x, the four why and i honestly believe the court is not processing the cases that way but they are processing the cases through j their philosophy that happens at this moment in time to kill one 100 with the political affiliation of the president who appointed them. It hasnt been that way this starkly before, jan alluded to justice seer. Justice stevens two republican appointees who ended up voting much more like numeral justices, if you can use that term. It sort of showed like they were doing that, its not because its just stevens and a certain sort of Country Club Chicago kind of way, still a republican but he had a judicial philosophy that was very different from the current president republican president is looking for. When you have a court thaten is divided along judicial philosophy lines that are one 100 correlated with the affiliation of the president to appoint them, you have a problem you have to manage. The chief justice who has very little tools in terms of managing thes court, hes only got one vote in the assignment power, he has this challenge of stewarding this institution that i think legitimately is not the case that way but its deciding the him in an environment where 99. 9 of the people will see it that way. The other thing, i will take the moderator here, i would argue that democrats by at least up until this election will find out who the standard is. Its pretty much the same party it was when people were appointed in the navy. Thats not true for the republican party. Justice stevens said not long before he died, he wrote something that said, if i had one asked to be most proud of, it would be justice stevens. It barely exists anymore. I think that is reflective and therefore the differences between the justices i think are more stark. I think in my business, feel that narrative. We shorthand the liberal justices so people who are casual observers, it comes from what they might see on television. The broken justices and democratic justices, i think the way we cover the court sometimes fuels that and its martha there are Judicial Services and judicial librettos. Its different but i do think thats a concern. I think the groups also feel it. I think the Interest Groups on the left and the right at times, their rhetoric is irresponsible. And wrong. Its contributing sometimes to the use of the court. It nine very smart people engaged in a struggle on how to interpret statutes. Genuinely wanting to get the right answer. Its not like i will rule this way in this case and you get it the next time. Its not like that. Ive lost a lot of respect to a lot of institutions in this town but the Supreme Court is not one. Every time im up there or watching, its a branch of government gusto works. Its almost a crime to be the all americans cant see it because its up to us. There is good news here, the court can just grant more cases for me and neil. Decide them unanimously and showing politics doesnt matter at all. I think there is a solution. I think this is a concern for the court. I think thats why you will rule on a lot of these cases quite narrowly. Its certain they will rule and doctor must come to an end. I will not predict that but knock yourself out. They are too hard to predict right now. They have the court Public Confidence in the court in the institution, its dramatically higher, like twice what congress is. So the publics confidencen the constitution is still high but that is crucial. Its gone down the law. They dont have army to enforce their decision. There are other questions over here. I want to turn to this question about the expanding the Supreme Court. Some of the done product candidates have been talking about. Last time being tried back in the history in the 1930s. It got shot down pretty quickly. Even though president roosevelt had huge majorities in both houses of the congress. We think its behind this time and how do think the Supreme Court reacts or do they react at all this talk about expansion of the court . Well, they hate it. He i think these are politicians. The fact is, as long as theres a clear center of the court, it could go either way. I think liberals trust in the court. For the first time, they had no input at all in the selection or confirmation. Even the two justices now. There was a lot of hankypanky about the seat being open. I think all of that was great for Mitch Mcconnell and republicans and they maximize their protect with that but the bad side is, people who are liberal or even moderate, the system is a little break. That leads to kind of what i call ideas like trying packing again. Which every justice, liberal and conservative has spoken that. Its a shame. Its more than a little hankypanky. The Republican Senate didnt even give a b hearing. That was putting the court in political thicket in its highly predictable. How can you not when thats what they did and destroyed the process . I fear terrible about the court but i know that. I want take issue with that but i will go a little further, i think we can see when you see sort of dysfunctional confirmation hearings, when you seek political candidates talking about expanding the court, to me that gets back to the idea that the court is deciding so many important issues, so many politically charged issues and congress, by contrast is kicking a lot of the issues that i think the framers thought it would decide and wrestle with to either the courts or the executive branch during action. If you put all that together, i dont know how you can be surprisede that in the very few instances in which the political process can influence these nine unelected people who are deciding everything from race, abortion and how to solve the weird crisis, of course when the political process gets an opportunity to influence that institution either by the vote on one nominee or by trying to derail another nominee or say the constitution doesnt specify the membership of the Supreme Court, how numerous editors, if the court has that much power and decides all these issues, you have to expect the political process can touch it. My name is kathleen, ith teah at the university of miami law school. There are a handful of us in the room who work on International Trade which does not intersect too much but it might in the future. Theres a case of the federal circuit now to look at the delegations of the president to put on National Security tough. As hard as it may be to predict the particular court, i welcome your expert views if not this term but further down the line. Thank you. If you started learning about the non allegation, i think you figured out that theres not that much to learn. Some of these said they had one very good day in 1931, its been all downhill since because the Supreme Court struck down statutes on non delegations theories and it has struggled with how you apply that doctrine. Explained what it is. For those of you who didnt wake up this morning thinking about the non delegation [laughter] the idea that congress can delegate, essentially too much state of authority to the executive branch or impermissibly delegate too much legislative power if it gives the executive branch assignments without really providing any meaningful constraining direction. Part of the reason the doctrine hasnt done particularly well since 1931, their agencies other that are supposed to regulate the airwaves in the Public Interest in the Supreme Court said its good enough and its in the public t interest, what wouldnt be and theres nothing in the constitution that speaks this directly so even the justices who would like to have a more robust nondelegation doctrine, they tend to be justices and there isnt a lot of text to. 2. I think the case about it was closely divided but if you read between the lines, there are like five justices on the court right now who have sympathy for the idea that the congress is delegating too much to the executive branch but i dont thank you have five justices that have a view, that there is a clean and workable line to apply so i think its an area where litigants should try to kind of make arguments that theres too much delegation doctrine here. If i were advising my clients about this, i would probably advise them to stay away from the nondelegation problem here and focus on something thats specific to this statute thats problematic that the court could say this congress cant do. This is an issue that welcome back up to the court, maybe the trade context but its not something where i think its easy predict the justices that are going to resurrect the doctrine at least in those terms. Iul think almost everyone agrees with this, congress can get that authority over to the members of the cfr or Something Like that. The trade cases are interesting because they come close to that hypothetical unlike the other stuff so i think they are the ones to watch and see. Theres a question down there. I am curious as to what your views are about the chief justice going over the senate in january or sometime early next year end how hes feeling about that. The twitter universe coming after him. Its right around the corner so you know. [laughter] i can help you the chief justice, the last chief justice. I did over impeachment. Presided in a neutral way. At the end he said i basically did nothing and i did it very well. [laughter] i think chief justice will use that as the model. Impeachment is weird and the chief justice can make any sort of ruling. Part of the reason for that is they talked about everything before hand so they had it sitting on his shoulder basically and they probably got along better than schumer and mcconnell butut still, the leads of these parties tend to when push comes to shove, to understand they have an object here. The object is to complete a trial and resolve in a relatively quick order. If they have different objectives, one want to drag it out and the other doesnt panic at harry but in the last impeachment, did not end up being a problem. The chief justice does not want to make rulings i would get over ruled by a majority and see him looking for legal but not my job. He may be doing stuff behind the scene but i dont think we will get to see it. You alluded to him looking regal. The interesting question is strike or no strike. They are saying this out of nowhere, it came from sullivan or something, they showed up inu court wearing the stripes on his rope. I think it would be neat i think it just as gettysburg can have that, he should have a special impeachment rope he only wears for impeachment. Red . Whatever. Something to shake it up. [laughter] it doesnt show what we are talking about this term, the court being the center of attention in an Election Year. The minds of all the Democratic Candidates so im sure its not where john roberts would like to be in january or february. However, by tradition the start so they can do everything. The object would be to do it well. He w listens to some foreign debate on the assessment. Anybody else . The journalist, i have a question for nina. I was wondering if you could share with us a personal story about your interactions with the notorious rpg. Maybe something that reveals upset about her sense of humor and character. She is a shy and quiet person. The secret for her is that she is a performer. How she got to be good at what she is as a lawyer and how she got her job on the Supreme Court because shes not, as she would tell you, clintons first choice by any means. There were others before, finally she gets to talk to her and he just falls for her. She gives a good speech but thats not the person ive known for so many years. When we were both very young. The only story i will tell you, about me more than her, when i started, i didnt know anything. Im not a lawyer, i really knew nothing. Maybe the second or first year, i dont remember, i opened this reef, before the court, they ruled against sex dissemination. He said women are covered by the 14th a mom andnd i go how . It was about that. I flipped to the front to see who wrote it and it was written by ruth bettis ginsberg. I noticed therere was the supree court pressroom, the size of my chair here. I called her and i get an hour long lecture. As how i met ruth. Thats how i have known her more and more. She is a fascinating person. She cares about that. She could educate you for an hour. [laughter] andrew shapiro, a question, theres been speculation on minds that one of the reasons why democrats dont need to subpoena others is because once impeachment happens, they can call as witnesses during the impeachment trial and chief justice would roll than. Why not just wait until he gets to the senateth floor try and gt those witnesses then . I was wondering what youve thought of that. Im not going to predict that, itn think the witnesses cn be called then but i think there were lectors two copies. Objecting to the court at the same time. You couldnt do that. I mean i know that we all have always thought that its impeachment at least some people think its the only remedy. Some people think its not the only remedy but it is at least that the remedy. Theres a court case called nixon versus United States and its not actually president nixon. There was a judge that was impeached and noo relation. But the Supreme Court say the federal courts have no business in impeachment and so i suspect thats what would happen even if the president tried to do that. You know i think it would be a terrible new argument. We have reached the bewitching our which is 1 30 and they tell me you are extremely prompt here at the council on Foreign Relations and if i let this go overer it in two minutei will probably be impeached. [laughter] so thank you all for coming. Thanks to my panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] hello everybody. I first want to look me to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. I am Ellen Mackenzie and proves to be the vienna school. Thank you for joining us today for what i think will be a very compelling conversation. One that will provide us great hope that we can make a difference in the fight i againt aids. But also it will remind us that there is still much, much to be done. Importantly we are going to need to double down on her efforts to meet the goals set out in the posttenure initiative championed by the nihih and the cdc and a special guest with us here today dr. Hensel and dr. Jon brooks. Here is the Bloomberg School of Public Health we have been talking about the power of Public Health. The power that comes from doing the fundamental research and translating that research into programs and policies that make a difference. The power that comes from strong partnerships across disciplines come across public and private sectors and across communities. And the power that comes from advocating for evidencebased solutions is to stay local and National Level. The fight against hiv aids exemplifies how a sustained stcommitment to these powers can make aow true difference. Todays conversation will be facilitated by our own dr. Chris bier the desmond tutu professor Public Health and human rights. Dr. Buyer in my humble opinion is a true Public Health hero, researcher and practitioner who is committed to solutions to some the worlds most challenging Public Health problems. He is a longtime hiv aids researcher with extensive experiencece in International Collaborative research and Training Programs in hiv aids with the focus on key populations. Hes also wellknown for its overriding commitment to secure health and human rightsea for a. As director of the Johns Hopkins ai g. Program dr. Buyer provided fellowships for over 1400 and i will repeat that 1400 International Scholars and hiv aids Prevention Research and treatment. Chris is one of the bloombergs most remarkable graduates. His successes in research and practice with the continuing and ongoing commitment from the top policy leaders at the cdc and nih make for a powerful combination and have helped bring us to where we are today on the cost of ending the hiv epidemic in america and indeed across the

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.