Than she made. When i was at the institute for justice many of you probably know that ann was a lawyer before she became the celebrity and commentator that she is today. And she applied for a position at the institute for justice. We offered her a position working as an attorney for i. J. And she turned us down. And the reason she turned us down was that washington dc. C. Had a dump it in antismoking ordinance and she was wondering where the heck ordinance. And she was wondering where the heck she would be smoking. We hired a different lawyer and that lawyer and i organized a group of parents and southcentral los angeles. To fight for school choice, to file a lawsuit arguing that the quality of education in southcentral los angeles was so appalling that it violated your state constitutions guarantee of a high quality education. They sought a voucher remedy, that essentially the opportunity to leave the School System altogether. And my colleague and i went into southcentral los angeles to meet with parents at a little Shopping Center. And unbeknownst to us, a riot was beginning to form and it became a very significant event. We were among the first people attacks. Were were attacked by rioters who came out into the road and started attacking our car with 2 x4s, and we drove off and, you know, sometimes civilization does not leave your mind. I remember as i am driving through the red light to get away from the marauders, im worried that im going to drive over their feet. Nonetheless, we get to the Shopping Center where the meeting is taking place and the tv is on. And im saying, we need to call the police and let them know what is happening here. Of course, the police knew. And they were nowhere in the area. And we went on to have the meeting. The Shopping Center was burned to the ground that night after we left. One of the parents drove us to safety but often since that time, my colleague and i escaped with our lives, often during that time i talk to myself i thought to myself what if ann had taken that job and she had been with me that night instead of my friend . You know what she would have done. She would have gotten out of the car and confronted the rioters. And i suspect that neither ann nor i would be with you today. So, thank you, ann, for turning down that position. I was disappointed at the time, but it turned out just well for both of us. Its so great to be back in Northern California. I have a tremendous number of connections here. What is was a youngster, i lived in the beautiful metropolis of daly city, california. And one of my classmates at Ben Franklin Junior High School went on to become congressman jim rogan from southern california. Just a phenomenal american. Like erikaca, i went to u. C. Davis for law school. As she said in her introduction, i was very eager, i just could not wait to start suing government. So, i didnt wait. My first two lawsuits were as a student. I first sued the president of the university of california, which is not did not endear me to my dean. Then i went on to sue the city of davis. Just on general principle no. In any event, until becoming a justice that is what i gleefully did for a living. Im happy to say we won many more battles than we lost. And im now so honored to be on a Tremendous Court that values the rule of law very, very highly and to be addressing the issues of individual rights and constraints on government power from a different perspective. I want to commend you for your involvement in this organization. And with advancing the principles that you hold dear. Im sure its a view that you agree with that Silicon Valley, of all the places on earth, should be the epicenter of freedom. [applause] Justice Bolick there is no place on earth that has more prospered from the soil of freedom than this place. And so, i hope that you will continue to spread the philosophy of freedom to others here in Silicon Valley who have prospered from the freedom they have. And i hope that they will stay the course. I was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court by governor doug ducey in january of last year, 2 016. So, im still fairly fresh in my role. And with my appointment, i was, i scored a number of firsts. I am the 44th justice appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court but the first ever independent. Every other justice has been either a republican or democrat. And so, i am the first to is not affiliated with a party. I am also the first justice to hang up on the governor when he called to offer me the position. This was not intentional. Im embarrassed to admit a and Silicon Valley of all places, i am a total technophobe. To this day, i cannot figure out how to get off one call and onto another without to disconnecting both people and that is exactly what happened. My friends have told me that the better explanation was that i was just exhibiting my view of the proper separation of powers. But, nonetheless, for surely, governor doucey took my call and he offered me the position. I am also the first member of the Arizona Supreme Court and possibly any Supreme Court and the country to be openly inked. Among the many clients i represented were the owners of a tattoo studio in tempe, arizona, which is a place that houses a major university. So you would think there would be some tattoo studios there. These were salt of the earth people. They had a successful studio in mesa. They got a permit from the city to open a tattoo studio in a half empty strip mall during the most recent recession. And they invested 25,000 and refurbished the place. Then the city decided, yeah, we do not want toa tattoo studio so they revoked their permit. I read about this on a saturday as my daughter was in gymnastics class, and it was so nice to get really irritated about something and be able to call the person and say, you want to sue . And the answer was, i cant afford a lawyer. My response, which i always loved giving was, im free. So, we filed a lawsuit. I used to get very, very passionate about my cases. As were filing this lawsuit and trying to get their permit and their opportunity to earn an honest living back, i vowed, if we win this thing, i am going to get inked. We did win. My wife said, you know what . I really wish you would not get a tattoo. And at that time, she was thinking of running for office and she asked me what i thought about that. And i said, i really wish you would not run for office. And she did. And i did. And were still happily married. I am happy to say. But i have befttingitting my status as a desert dweller, i have a tattoo of a scorpion on my typing finger. I have typed every aftes to get inked. I dont know. I thought i was a fairly persuasive guy. So far not a single one of them has gone openly inked. Im going to continue working on that. My talk tonight is about an essential, yet as erica mentioned, often overlooked part of the story of american freedom. And that is a digit shearing committed a judiciary committed to the rule of law. It is something we often take for granted, but we can ill afford to do so. There are two recent incidents that i read about that really america isique with regard to his judiciary and how important it is to safeguard that system. Know, there you may are now a lot of Chinese Students learning, studying in the United States, many of them law students. And a lot of american lawyers go over to china, and they talk about our system. And the chief justice of the chinese Supreme Court apparently grew very agitated about the infiltration of western ideas of justice in china. And grew very, very i concerned about it. In an article in the new york toes, he said we need vanish these western ideas because the purpose of the digit shearing the judiciary is to sustain the regime. Just imagine that. If we had a judiciary whose purpose was to sustain the regime. How different our society would be. Venezuela recently, the venezuelan Supreme Court, abolished the legislature, the national legislature, and assumed its powers. Imagine that. You know, our congressional not very high, but just imagine what they would be if the Supreme Court said, you know what . Were going to start passing loss from now on. You know, as angry or frustrated as people can legitimately be about some decisions that courts country, when you think about the judicial systems in other countries, the fact to enforce au seek contract or your private Property Rights or Something Like that, you will walk away emptyhanded even though you deserve to win. It really makes you realize how important the judiciary is here in the United States and how lucky we are to have a judiciary that will enforce the rights of individuals. The framers of our constitution considered an independent judiciary a essential to preserving liberty. Framersrole that the intended for the judiciary was thect a limitation on powers of the other two branches of government. It was the only body capable of holding the executive branch and the legislative branch to their defined limits of power under the constitution. Additionally, only the judiciary of thought to be capable of, vindicating the individual rights in our bill of rights and our constitution. The framers, as you know, considered the judiciary the Dangerous Branch of government for precisely this reason because when they exercise power, it would be restraining the power of the other two branches of government. But the framers did warn in the federalist papers that the judiciary could become a very dangerous body if it ever took on the powers of the executive or the legislative branches. Indeed, when it has done so and it has done so in many instances, it has been a very Dangerous Branch of government. So, there is a constant battle going on in the judiciary between those who believe that evolvingitution is an document, that is a document that the judges should look at and say, really , in our time, how should this read . Not how does it read . The judges in our system who believe that the constitution is eternal. That there is a way to amend the constitution. It is not by judicial legislation. By the amendment process that the framers set out in the constitution. Its a legitimate for judges to themselves amend the constitution. And the resolution of that in during battle is absolutely vital to the future of freedom in our country. A result of that, it might view, in my view, and recent history bears this outcome of the most important and in during decision a president will ever make is who to appoint to the United States a bring court and to the federal judiciary. [applause] justices usually far outlast the president s who appoint them. And just think about it. Ronald reagan has not been president since 1988. But as of only a year and a half ago, two members of the United StatesSupreme Court and now one were appointed by Ronald Reagan. Boy, that is a legacy that far outlasts the president. Justice kennedy remains on the court. He is the remaining Ronald Reagan appointee. And the impact of those justices can be extremely significant as well. For both good and bad. In fact, dwight, some of you may be familiar with this quote, was asked after he was finished being president , what his biggest mistakes were as president. He said, the two biggest mistakes that i made as president are both serving on the United States up in court. They definitely outlast the president and if the president goofs in his or her judgment, that can be an enduring thing as well. The appointment of justices today is more consequential than ever for towo reasons. The first is that the value of Lifetime Appointments ha increased. The framers and their wisdom said in order to be a truly independent judiciary, we must provide lifetime tenure to our judges. In fact, justices have tended to often lead very long lives. In fact, there is a saying that if you wanted to live a long life, be appointed to the u. S. Supreme court. If you wanted to live a short life, retire from the u. S. Of in court. And so, justices have tended to stay for a very long time. My very favorite quote from thurgood marshall. They asked him if he planned to retire anytime soon to he was in his 80s. He said, absolutely not. I was appointed to a lifetime tenure. And i intend to serve every single day of that. Not only that, i plan to live to be over 100 years old, and not only that, when i finally die i plan to be shot by a jealous husband. Thats quite the aspiration. He served on the court for a good, long time. But, of course, longevity has dramatically increased lifetime tenure. At the time of our nations founding, the average age of appointment of a Supreme Court justice is about the same as it is today. It was age 50 at that time to however, Life Expectancy at that time was in the 30s. So, the average age of the appointee was older than the average age of death. So that the logical explanation tenure wouldetime be that you would die and still he as soon as you are appointed. Some of these folks did live a good, long time but lifetime tenure did not mean all that much. Today, the average age of a Supreme Court nominee is 52. Life expectancy for a 52yearold is about 85. The averagethat term of the u. S. Supreme Court Justice today is roughly 32 years. That is 8 president ial terms. When you think about that, that is a breathtaking legacy. And so, the importance of, of Supreme Court appointments is going to outlast any presidency. Clarence thomas, for example, was appointed at age 43. If he lives to be the same edge as thurgoodge h marshall, he will set the alltime record for longevity on the u. S. Supreme court and serve for 40 years. Of course, he could well live longer and serve on the court longer than that. President and senators are figuring this out. So, theyre appointing nominees at an earlier and earlier age. And you may have read in the most recent nomination that basically if you had a six in t he first digit of your age, you were probably not going to be considered for the court. Mitch mcconnell, person who is his ribaldffor sense of humor, was recently reported as having had a conversation with neil gorsuch in which gorsuch said, i would really hope to serve for 2025 years on the Supreme Court if im confirmed and Mitch Mcconnell scoffed and said, no, think strom thurmond. So, who knows . In any event, this is obviously, you know, this is obviously part of the calculus now for the u. S. Supreme court. The second reason why the appointment of justices is more consequential than ever is that the science of predicting judicial opinions and judicial philosophies has grown better than it ever was in the past. Both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano roosevelt tried to pack the u. S. Supreme court. In lincolns case, he was trying to pack the court to uphold his controversial executive orders during the civil war and roosevelt, of course, was trying to pack the court to uphold the new deal. Dut both of them faile ultimately because they appointed justices who were very independent and ve and different directions. Richard nixon the same thing. But it has been a long time since a president has nominated a justice who did not live up to his expectations for that justice. In fact, the most recent such appointee david souter is not even on the court anymore. And that is not to say that the philosophicaln lockstep. There are lots of unanimous decisions. They are independent thinkers and they often go their different ways. But generally speaking, you can fairly condo we predict on a controversial constitutional issue how a justice will come down based on the Party Affiliation of the president that appointed that justice. And that is now permeating not just the u. S. Supreme court, but the Lower Court Decisions as well. One thing that struck me recently and im not allowed to talk about it, i dont intend to, it all on pending cases, but for example, the recent challenges to trumps immigration executive order, as ive been following it, almost all of the judges who voted to strike down those orders were appointed by democrats. Almost all who voted to uphold them were republican. What that suggests to me is that president s are taking the philosophy of judicial candidates very, ery seriously very seriously. Well, we are now in the 26th year of a fairly consistently conservative u. S. Supreme court. What i mean by conservative is a hues to theenerally constitutional text rather than reinterpreting the text to mean different things. Head huge, realworld ramifications and at least seven areas of the law. Probably all of which are important to each and every one of you as they are to me. And in no particular order, the first is private Property Rights. We have numerous protections of private Property Rights in our bill of rights, and yet, they have been largely eviscerated by previous courts, especially in the area of takings, where the government would take property, of just through an overt use Eminent Domain but through regulation that would actually lower the value of your property and reduce your ability to use your property as you intended. And that has largely changed. The major exception to that of course was the q. O. Eminent domain decision i will talk about in a little greater detail, but by and large, there is far greater constitutional protection for private Property Rights today than there was before the nomination and confirmation of clarence thomas, which was i think the turning point on the court. The second is the area of racial preferences. That government may discriminate for benign purposes to advantage individuals, either for the sake of overcoming a disadvantage or to promote racial diversity, particularly in universities. Again, the court just retreated from that, in that area, in the university of texas case, but again, there are far greater constitutional restraints on racial preferences today than there were 26 years ago. An issue near and dear to my heart because i litigated this issue for a majority of my litigation career, school cho ice, the idea of School Vouchers or other forms of allowing children to go to the school of their choice using their share of public funds. This is an issue that was confronted by the establishment clause. And the establishment clause reads that Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. And this is one of those provisions that the courts had really rewritten. They rewrote it so successfully that we now think of that as separation of church and state today. Strict separation of church and state in the u. S. Constitution. There is a prohibition against the establishment of religion. When i see those two terms, i see two very, very different things. But the court had really done a they confusing rewriting of constitution, and the Current Court has really changed that. Thelimited the scope of establishment clause. U. S. Ase that went to the Supreme Court that i litigated was a case involving a Cleveland Voucher Program in 2002. And it was upheld by the resounding vote of 54. And just to kind of show the divide on the court, the dissenters in that case argued that if we upheld, if the court upheld that voucher program, that we would see religious strife of the same degree that we saw in bosnia and northern ireland. Now, i just, of course, as a litigator thought that was a tad ridiculous and, in fact, we have not seen any such religious strife flowing from that decision but, nonetheless, that illustrates the divide. An issue, of course, that a lot of people are, feel very strongly about is the Second Amendment. And, of course, the United StatesSupreme Court reading the Second Amendment and applying its historical meaning ruled that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to that,nership of guns and obviously, is an issue that had not been resolved before then. The issue of political speech, particularly the exercise of political speech through campaign contributions. ,efore the Current Court political speech could be very, very heavily regulated by state governments and the federal government. Today, those restrictions are far less, l the Court Reading the plain language of the First Amendment that says Congress Shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, and giving meaning to those words. The Commerce Clause of the nowed states constitution, i am getting into nerdy jargon here. This could not be more important. The power of the federal government to regulate commerce had basically been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Even the power to regulate what individuals did in their own homes never passed into the stream of commerce. Cases,the most infamous individuals for growing food on their own farm for their own consumption. He regulated that and the Supreme Court said of course it is a commerce case. Therefore it affects commerce. Would plain reading have you believe that it actually requires commerce for congress to regulate it. The u. S. Supreme court has ruled that back significantly. Another area, the issue of federalism which is more important today in the divided red and blue america. It is important that states be able to reflect the maximum theible possible degree values of their citizens, whether it is for greater regulation or greater freedom. Federalism was reduced to what the u. S. Supreme court in the 40s called a truism. Now it is vital again. Case thehe obamacare federalled 63 that funding could not be used to course states into adopting the federal governments medicare regulations. Federalism now is alive and well. Early all of those areas or 54 decisions. So the switch of a single vote in any of those areas could be very decisive, very sweeping. With regard to the u. S. Supreme court, i am fairly optimistic. Courts fulcrum is californias representative on anthony kennedy. Justice kennedy is definitely more conservative than not. I know all of you can think of instances where the not part is true. Speaking, in fact on all of the areas that i just listed, he has voted with conservatives more often than not. Say, i viewo Justice Kennedys decisions as being increasingly on more and to theoard unmoored rule of law. Interstatehe transportation of wine, sale of wine to consumers, which people outside of California Care deeply about. The court upheld it 54. , while i wasision grateful Justice Kennedy wrote the decision, i thought it could have been much stronger. Thingstended to focus on that are wonderful values, like right the constitutional to define and express ones dignity. Nobility, all of these things are wonderful but not constitutional principles. I worry about a quart, even when i agree with a decision hitching its decisions to things like nobility and dignity. They are in the eye of the beholder. They are not words that have clear ascertainable meaning. When you give judges words that have no clear or ascertainable meaning they can invest their own views on the subject. I recently had a dustup with regard to a decision by Justice Kennedy in a criminal case. I did not practice criminal law but i am finding criminal cases be of the most interesting on our court docket. Juvenile killers. What punishment they can be meted. , in the cruelas and unusual punishment context, which they have reinterpreted to. E cruel or unusual punishment if it is either it is unconstitutional. I disagree with that. For a reason. None the less the court several years ago held juvenile killers cannot be sentenced to death. Held that juvenile killers cannot be sentenced to without thenment an possibility of parole unless there is a determination made they are at the time of their sentencing irreparably corrupted. In a recent decision, Justice Kennedy said a court has to where,ne, i dont know he gave a hint as to where this was coming from. He said there has to be a determination that it was irreparably corrupted as opposed to this being an exercise, and these are the words, transient immaturity. I wrote in a concurring opinion in my court applying this decision, when my 12yearold daughter slugs her 15yearold brother. It is not when a 17yearold commits a coldblooded premeditated murder. This bothers me even more than the transient immaturity language. That the vastinct majority of juveniles who commit murder are not irreparably corrupted. Therefore in the vast majority of cases they must be given parole. This is like a crystal ball kind of thing. Getting into the minds of these people. So bereft ofto be that intional mooring an opinion where we have to go back in the state of arizona and california, all 50 states and resentenced every single juvenile murderer who was not given the possibility of parole. Some go back decades. The courts have to figure out whether or not at the time they were convicted or sentence they were irreparably corrupted. You dont read about cases like this very often. They are not frontpage news. As i go about my job and have to Federation Federal law, when i see cases like this i think to myself there is something seriously wrong. Having said that i think the glass is more than half full and by glass got replenished justice neil gorsuch. [applause] had the occasion to read a couple of dozen of his opinions as a federal court judge in the 10th circuit. I loved what i read. I was inspired i what i read. There were two aspects of it that i will share with you. Was,tter what the issue judge gorsuch always started with the text of the constitution, or the const text of the statute he was applying. He credited opposing views. He acknowledged in some cases that there might be different outcomes, different meetings, ambiguity. , if you were ast , whone textualist genuinely believes in enforcing yourule of law, sometimes are going to produce outcomes with which you personally disagree. I can say that personally, there have been multiple cases that i have joined or writ that i would not have supported us supported as a policy matter. Sometimes that means you enforce the law and the way that comes out any way that you disagree with. I saw instances where i think he did that. He unfailingly starts with the text. If the text is clear that is the end of the analysis. Law,ont look to foreign you dont look to instincts. You look to the law. [applause] this was also inspiring. Gorsuch is one of the nicest judges i have ever read. He is always complimentary of his colleagues. Even the divergent views with which he is disagreeing. As you may have heard this was not always the case with his predecessor, Justice Scalia, who could be caustic in his commentary. I think gorsuch is a philosophical air to Justice Scalia but a bit more of a sweetheart at least in terms of jurisprudence. The prospects for change on the court are significant. Theirjustices are nearing 80s. This president may have further opportunities to affect the composition of the court. I hope that this president or as aident will look candidates like Justice Gorsuch who adhere to the rule of law. One other source of my optimism is the area that is closest to home for me, state courts. Enforcing state constitutions. Our devotion about to the constitution. All of us have two constitutions. It was our state constitutions that were intended to be the primary source of the protection of our rights. , every state constitution contains greater constraints on the power of government and greater protections of individual rights than the National Constitution does. Too often we overlook state constitutions as an independent source of our rates. Nifty, state courts can interpret them to provide greater freedoms than the National Constitution but they cannot interpret them to provide less protection than the federal constitution. I call this a freedom ratchet. You can only decide in one direction. If you decide you are your state constitution gives you less protection, it gives you greater protection. It is a tremendous thing. One example of a case that i ago, mosta few years state constitutions contain a provision that i wish was in the federal constitution. It is called the gift clause. It prohibits gifts of public funds to private corporations, individuals or associations. Suchu can imagine no provision in the u. S. Constitution. We use that to strike down taxpayer subsidies of shopping malls in arizona. , you know asne californians the myriad instances in which taxpayer funds are given to private individuals for various purposes. Im happy to say our Supreme Court, they did rule that subsidies of private operations are unconstitutional. The ways in which state constitutions provide greater freedom than the u. S. Constitution. I hope that you will all engage in future debates over the shape and direction of the due judicial judiciary. Obviously the president , the senate and the court of Public Opinion are all implicated in this. I want to finish by again saying , i acknowledge the tremendous mistakes gorsuch made over the years, but one of the things that i love about the judiciary and the things that attracted me to a career as a lawyer was that it is the ultimate level playing field. No matter how much money you have, no matter how much power you have, when you get the court you have the same number of pages in your brief, the same opportunity to present witnesses as the other person. Reasons im not really sure about, i often think of a case my colleagues and nine litigated in the 1990s. It was a case involving imminent or main. A lady in Atlantic City lived in her house for many years. She was widowed. She wanted to live out her life in that house. Unfortunately a very rich and powerful local developer had other ideas. He wanted that property to use as a parking lot for his limousines. He said i would like to have property. The city said we will use Eminent Domain to take that property and give it to you. Im happy to say we went to court and as an example of how david can defeat goliath in the courts of law, we won. The story has a very happy ending for everyone involved. Was able to live the rest of her life in that house. The developer when john to be elected president of the United States. My colleagues and i can say we beat the president of the United States in court. How much better can it get . I want to thank you for having leave. Im delighted to take your questions. I just want to finish by saying go get em. Thank you so much for having me. I want to say, i apologize for not saying this before people threewishons, there are areas i cannot comment on. Cases that are currently pending anywhere. I mentioned immigration cases before as an example. Any issue that is likely to become before my court, and finally, politics. Happy i really have to not answer some questions but im happy to answer questions that i can. Im going to use my executive privilege. I thought of something as you were speaking. I was impressed by the thought that sometimes youve got to go with what is really there versus it is the constitution. The habs it is my myopic view but it seems like only our side does that. Could you comment . That is my impression. Ice bolick there are think it really comes down to intellectual honesty. Neither side has a monopoly on that. Judges andiberal liberal scholars who are genuinely textualist and believe they are constrained. There are conservative judges pick thears, some who outcome and just go in that direction. Think they doi damage to the rule of law. Nonetheless, constitutional fidelity has been a hallmark of conservative scholars and conservative judges. Sees just the way that we the world. That ourhilosophy law, thaton is higher comes to us not as mere mortals but from a higher source. , the are the rules constitution embodies the law, the laws by which we should live. We believe in them very strongly. Our nature to be drawn to that. We are honest, that is the sort of thing when people see when people say this president s executive , and gore terrible beyond this president s constitutional boundaries, but this president s executive orders dont. It has got to be consistent. In have got to believe federalism whether your person is in charge or not. You have to believe in the separation of powers whether your person is in charge or not. Its important to show our intellectual consistency and honesty. This is a short question. What do you think is dividing the ninth circuit . I supportlick dividing the ninth circuit. Having said that it is much easier said than done. I support dividing the ninth circuit for one strong reason. Large that youso cannot get all of the judges in the same room for the same hearing. As result of that you have competing, conflicting decisions from the very same court. You can say this panel saying one thing and this panel saying another. You cannot have that. Other circuits resolved that through a process called en banc review. They all get together and decide the case. The ninth circuit literally cannot do that. They cannot consider a consistent rule of law. I do support dividing the ninth circuit. Of how onge question earth you divide a circuit that is overwhelmingly dominated by one state. It is difficult to divide the state. Then you could get conflicting roles in Northern California and southern california. Jurisdictional issues and so forth. Who gets california in their circuit is the real problem with coming up with a solution for which the problem is very real. Variety of issues around the same topic. Perhaps old and decrepit georges judges. Should judges have terms . Whenere any point in time something could be done about that . Justice bolick an arizona and some other states we have a mandatory retirement age of 70. Perhaps asmy view people work longer and stay mentally acute longer that may be too young. As far as the federal judiciary is concerned, there is little avenue for this. There is a tremendous amount of p or pressure. If one of the judges is losing it, his or her colleagues will definitely let them know. It means a tougher burden on them. Impeachment, which has only been done a couple of times in american history, that is the system we are living with. We have a few younger people in the audience. Which law schools are good and not iis . Not biased. Justice bolick first of all if lawyer, ifaspiring you can, introduce yourself to me. I have mentor a lot of young people over the years. My favorite parts of my job is 2 law clerks every year, learning from them, especially the technology stuff. Love my work with aspiring lawyers. Know, the world of legal law schools has changed dramatically since i went to law school. The main thing that has changed it is an organization that i esteem, hold in high the Federalist Society. They have not only reshaped law schools but the judiciary. Impact ona tremendous the judiciary. What the Federalist Society has done, they have not taken over law schools. Is they havee done it a congenialde thing to go to law school. Knowave friends, who you you share values with. The Federalist Society also has ofically introduced the idea civil debate into law schools. Mef liberal deans have told there would be no debates in the law school if it wasnt for the Federalist Society. Basically what that means is in the law school that has a Federalist Society is a fine and congenial place to go to school. Almost all of them have act societies. Ctive my alma mater, i had real difficulties there. Two of the three years i was speakers were jane fonda and ralph nader. Instead of spending my Graduation Day with ralph nader i spent in napa valley. Ive never regretted that decision. A vibrantas Federalist Society. The key thing, i did not know this. I did not have any mentors when i was choosing a law school. The two things that are most important about a law school, the law schools reputation. Doors will close to you if you go to a law school that is not as highly ranked as you possibly can get into. Go to the highest ranked school you can get into. Is, the lawart school is the most congenial environment. It can be three years of hell. You want to be in a place you enjoy being. Whether that means nyu because you love new york, or Drake Law School because you love the midwest. Go to a place is congenial. I do this a fair amount. Im happy to do it on an individual basis as well. [indiscernible] sharia law is a cultural matter. Justice bolick i cannot. That is an ongoing issue. Do you really type with one finger . Justice bolick i do. It is really fast. It has even been on tv. , flightngle days attendants would Pay Attention to me and say ive never seen anything like that before. I learned to type when i was four years old on one of those old manual typewriters. It just got really fast. I never found a use for my other fingers on my left hand. I do occasionally hit the shift button. It has transformed me well to the world of cell phones because i am very fast at that. You said the schools are a of you andbject related to the things you talked about. Is there a point when a judge needs to recuse himself from a case . Yes, we judges have and judges except for u. S. Supreme court judges, they do not have a rule of ethics that applies to them. They literally have to make it up as they go along. Judges, if not all are bound by rules of judicial affects. You must avoid the appearance of bias. That is why i told you the things that i could not talk about because the last thing i want is for someone to tell me, you expressed a view and the outcome of that case. Result i had to recuse myself from all cases in which i was involved, at the goldwater myself from recuse several and i had to recuse myself way own stock at a company. By and large, judges can express , and on philosophy cases that are already decided. Decided, without tainting their view. I hope that even those who do not agree with me, when they see my decisions, believe i am an unbiased judge. In any case, where i felt that i was compromised. That i knew the outcome before i looked at the briefs, i would recuse myself. When you follow the courts at all, we hear about the living constitution versus the texture. Where does that come from, the living constitution . Justice bolick that is a good question to which i do not know the answer. Could be completely wrong. This is one area where i record with films whot we would disagree on matters of judicial philosophy have sees the rhetorical high ground. Of course our const touche and is a living constitution. Relevantiples are as to us today, perhaps even more relevant than they were when the document was started. It is very much a living document. What it is not is a self amending document. It stays the same unless the people are mended. [applause] so i would try to recapture that term. Lookis the most if i this good when im over 200 years old [laughter] Justice Bolick i would be pretty darn happy. Declare the statement and then asked the question. Why do lawyers in general have respect for the highest laws of the land. If they do, why . I honestly, and this is perhaps more damning than the question. I do not think lawyers think about it very often. Think about the area in practice in which they are engaged. Bet could be wills, it could personal injury. That has actually been an interesting phenomenon in arizona. Governorelection of doug do see who appointed me. Predecessors, judges names are sent through the governor through nominating positions. Interviewednally every single judicial candidate in the state of arizona. Tell me something about yourself interviews. They are tell me what your philosophy of the religion of the free exercise of religion versus the establishment of religion. What is the best u. S. Supreme Court Decision in the last 50 who is your favorite justice and why . People go to that interview and they have no idea what their answers are to these questions. Ignorance think that is worse than an active disdain. At least you can engage someone with an active disdain. Most lawyers do not give the constitution very much thought. Iof the remedy of that try to be a part of solutions to i amems i identify it making my teaching debut this fall at asu. I will be teaching constitutional law. Want to teach my students. And i really hope i am able to do this, is not just what the a love for our constitution and a love for constitutional law. If they have that, even if they go into water law, they are still going to be reading u. S. Supreme Court Decisions and in turn allies in them and analyzing them. If we have lawyers who really care about the cost teaching, that is a huge part of the battle. [applause] we talked a few minutes ago about dividing the circuit. What would it take to divide the state of california . Justice bolick [laughter] i have no idea. To hear from you how you are going to do this. , 3, 6 might be interesting. We have a couple of questions about article five and the connection of states. We will talk a little bit about that. Justice bolick this is a very controversial subject. That is whether the people should invoke article five of the constitution. I know there is some enthusiasm for that idea. And their wisdom give us not one but two ways to amend the constitution. The Convention Idea has not been used since the 1780s. It is a mechanism that the people themselves can use to alter the constitution. There is a tremendous division among conservatives. It is one i hope does not spill over because the people on both sides of this debate are of entirely good faith. I hope that we will respect each others opinions and the good faith with which we hold their opinions. I do note, and some of you may not know this. I am sure all of you know that former senator jen dement stepped down as president of the heritage foundation. He has now joined the convention of the states idea in a formal capacity. I tend to support the idea. I am not hugely educated on it, and i am not direct the involved in the effort. Think, there is the ultimate safeguard of a convention. I know people are terrified of a convention. 38 states have to ratify any constitutional amendment proposed i8 convention. If we have 38 states ratifying and antifreedom amendment, it is done. We are done. I do not think that will ever happen. Am not ast i concerned about the negative aspects of a constitutional convention. The possible the positive aspect is that often time when the people begin exerting this , Congress Responds in a positive way. It puts tremendous pressure on them. Lemming give you one quick example that i am enormously proud of. It is not the Convention Idea, but the goldwater is to toots started in idea called right to try. Some of you may be familiar with it. Is a state provision that says that individuals with fatal diseases have the right to choose, the right to Access Medicine that is experimental and not approved by the fda. That has been gone through clinical trials. The states may not have the power to do this. His ideas spread like wildfire. Over the 30 states have approved it, including governor jerry brown signing californias law into this affect. The fda washat going to file a lawsuit to challenge this as a violation of federal sovereignty over international commerce. We were sure that was going to happen. We were preparing for the litigation. Instead, they act down. A change their process, which took months to apply for an individual use of an experimental drug. Almost no one had the resources to do this, or the time in many instances. They cut that down to a number of hours. That is what i see potentially with the Convention Idea. It is a title wave. It is a synonymy and Congress Responds in a way that it would not. Thing you want this to have its hands tied with a constitutional amendment. It is a fairly pragmatic respect to vie invoicing. I could be dissuaded from that. Idea thatge, it is an i think is a good one. The framers intended for us to use it. [applause] good answer. Philosophical. When evaluating a law for constitutionality, which is more important . The perceived intent of the law or how law will be implemented . Justice bolick that is a really good question. How the law will be implemented or the perceived intent. First of all, as i have said over and over again, the text of the law is what is crucial. Just to give you an example of segregation was widespread when the 14th amendment was passed. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. If we interpreted it occurred meant, what the framers we might have segregation today. Instead the courts rightfully, ultimately interpreted it in a court with the plain meaning of the language of equal protection and the philosophy, underlying that. I think that is the right thing to do, even when it leads to an outcome that you might disagree with. That, i think that and this is such an interesting question. I think that intent is much more important than how the law will play out. Mistakes ists own the role of the legislator, not the role of the courts. Scalia quote is a that i absolutely love. Passes crazyngress laws all the time. He said, our job, if they send us a garbage it is to send garbage back. Garbage in, garbage out. [laughter] that really you know, i am very concerned about the effects of such things sometimes, but we are not in the business of correcting legislative errors. We are in the business of enforcing the role of the people express through legislation and less of violates the constitution. Thank you so much. [applause] Justice Bolick wonderful audience. [applause] see you next month. President trump arrived wednesday in poland ahead of the g 20 summit which will be held in hamburg germany. He for heading to the will make a Foreign Policy speech in the morning live at 7 10 a. M. Eastern on cspan two. Supreme Court Justice sonia so to my art talks to law students about her professional and personal life and the importance of education. This runs one hour and 15 minutes. Ms. Soto mayor you touched my heart. Thank you