Transcripts For CSPAN Inside The Supreme Court 20141228

Made the biggest false claims this past year. Democrats tend to get more upset at them because i think they are bothered by the myth of the liberal media and they think that the media is on their side. Republicans firmly believe in the myth of the liberal media. They expect that it is going to be the Washington Post those quote column. They are not going to disturb me. I hope that over the last four years, i have done enough back and forth treated both parties with equal fervor that people have no come have now come to marginally say here so and we can do business with. The Senate Majority pac which is affiliated with harry reid they have stopped answering my questions midway through the Campaign Season because they felt they were not getting a fair shake from a. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern and pacific on cspans q1 day q a. New years day on the cspan networks. Here are some of our featured programs. 10 00 a. M. Eastern. The washington ideas forum. Business magnet t boone pickens. Inventor dean kamen. At 4 00 p. M. Eastern, the Brooklyn Historical Society Holds a conversation on race. At 8 00 p. M. Eastern from the explorers club, apollo seven astronaut walt coming him Walt Cunningham on the first manned spaceflight. Just before noon, hector tovar on the 33 mend buried in a chilean mine. Then at 8 00 p. M. Eastern former investigative correspondent for cbs news Cheryl Atkinson on her experiences reporting on the obama administration. New years day on American History tv on cspan3. At 10 00 a. M. Eastern,juanita abernathy on her experiences and the role of women in the civil rights movement. The link between now politics in prerevolutionary new york city. 10 president ial characters as historian David Mcculloch discusses the president s and some of their most memorable qualities. New years day on the cspan networks. For the complete schedule, go to www. Cspan. Org. Tonight on cspan, a conversation with Supreme Court Justice Elena kagan. Then a discussion on the future of conservatism. Later, google executive chair eric schmidt talks about Data Collection and the Tech Industry as a whole. Supreme Court Justice elena kagan returned to her alma mater, Princeton University, last month for a conversation with the president. She talked about her career, her approach to law and serving on the nations highest court. She took questions from audience members. This is under an hour and a half. Welcome, folks. My name is stephen, professor of politics at the University Center for human values at princeton. I helped to instigate this event which is brought to you by the University Center for human values, now in his 25th year. Also brought to you by the Princeton University public lectures led by professor eric gregory. I want to thank the University Staff who have been involved in this and most especially, who has managed any detail. Elena kagan, princeton class of has had a distinguished career 1981, of professor of law at the university of chicago and harvard, and also as a member of the executive branch of the United States government as council and domestic policy advisor to president clinton and solicitor general of the United States under president obama. She has seved as dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009 where she was a Bridge Builder in that institution. Of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009 where she was a Bridge Builder in that institution. During her four years on the Supreme Court, she has emerged as the courts more liberal wing and continued her efforts as a consensus builder and her hunting trips with Justice Scalia. They shoot skeet and other things [laughter] as former Vice President cheney been involved in any of these . If he is, stay hained him. [laughter] it has been said that the role of the Supreme Court of the United States is to speak on behalf of justice for the american people. Constitutional selfgovernment written by a princeton Vice President. He is a authority on constitutionalism and the Supreme Court. Constitution and the court and justice in america than the two people to my right, princeton president and associate justice of the United States Supreme Court elena kagan. [cheers and applause] good to be herement let me start off by thanking you to have you here. By the extraordinary audience to welcome you back. Thank you for making time. I was thinking the last time i was back and it was my 25th reunion and i spent a little part of the afternoon Walking Around princeton and seeing all the new thing on campus and it looks fantastic. Woodrow wilson came back when he was in the white house. And might give them them butterflies. Any time we get you back. Steve wanted to hear us talk about the court and the constitution. I want to give an opportunity these rumors about these hunting trips with Justice Scalia. It is a pretty funny story. I grew up in new york city. And i did not hunting. You have to do these courtesy visits, the hearings you see on tv. The tip of the iceberg and you have to talk to all the senators. I did 82 of them. And what was striking is how many of them both republicans and democrats wanted to talk to me about guns. As a kind of there are rules about what you can ask at these kind of sitdowns and what i could say and they couldnt ask me direct questions about what i thought about particular issues. The proxies were along the lines of do you hunt . And i went through the views. And it was and my answers were pathetic. No. Do you know anybody who hunts . Not really. I was sitting with one of the senators from a senator from idaho and he was telling me how important it was to many of his constituents and i totally understand why and why many senators would want to know these kinds of things. And it was late in the day my 93rd interview and i say said, if you would like me to hunt, i would be glad to come. And this look of abject horror passed over his face. I said senator i didnt mean to invite myself to your ranch, but i will tell you that if im lucky enough to be confirmed i will ask Justice Scalia to take me hunting. I group up in new york and i understand why this matters to you and i would commit to do that for you. And when i got to the court, i went over to Justice Scalias chambers this story and he thought it was hilarious and i said this is the single promise i made in 82 office sbrouse. He said i will have to let you fulfill that promise. And he started with skeet shooting and we went and did the real thing and couple of times a year we go out and shoot quail and pheasant and once went out top wyoming where i shot a deer. You enjoy it . I do like it. Im a little bit of a competitive person you know. [laughter] you put a gun in my hand and you said the gun is an object, lets do it. Long before you were a Supreme Court justice or a hunter, you were a student on this campus. How do you remember princeton . I love princeton. All of you folks who go to princeton are incredibly lucky. I suspect its better. But i was a history major. I had fantastic professors. How many of the faculty were so generous with their time, whether in out of office conversations. I saw think these is adviser a little bit before this and im a little bith nervous he is in the audience, i think he is going to take out his red opinion pen. Dont worry about it. We repealed the grading policy. He edited my these is four times over and i learned it here. I have friends who will be my friends until the day i die. I did activities that were important to me. I spent time fee daily prince tonian. And i feel warmly about it. And what it did for me. Did you occur that you wanted to be a Supreme Court justice . I never had that thought. I did an event earlier with some students and a woman asked me, did you know you wanted to be a lawyer and i had to admit to her that i didnt. The law did seem all that interesting or exciting to me. My dad was a lawyer and i look at what he did and i understand why it was deeply meaningful to him. He was not a courtroom lawyer. As a kid i didnt get what was interesting or exciting about it. And i went to law school for the wrong reasons. And the kind of i dont know what else to do and i want to keep my options open reasons. And i got there and loved it. And i was glad i made that decision. Life takes you on different paths. Honestly, i had come back my 25th reunion, eight years ago, if you said what are you going to be doing with the rest of your life, i said i was going to be cries iseberger and thought i was going to be a university president. Flukey way life works. And takes twists and turns and dont know where you are going to end up. Are you enjoying it . Its a good gig. As much as i say all of that, if you had said to me in law school you have a chance to be a Supreme Court justice i would have said yes. You did clerk for two extraordinary judges. Can you say a bit about how those experiences shaped you . The person i am and the lawyer i have been not just like in the last five years, i started thinking about those two men. They have had a longlasting impact on my life. The judge, next week is getting the National Medal of freedom, and that will be just wonderful. Had this really interesting career. He ended up serving in all three branches of our government. He was a congressman from illinois for a lot of years before he became a judge and left the bench and went into the Clinton White house and how i got into the Clinton White house and he said come work for me again and a lot of my life has been shaped by that experience. But he knew all kinds of things about how law worked and government worked. And he was also the worlds most decent human being and i learned about that, too. Justice marshall. There your 27 years old and kind of experience jerblely, as you know, you clerked on the Supreme Court, too. You are young and there you are in this institution where all the cases are being decided and kind of a trip, but then in addition to that, there you are in Thurgood Marshalls office, the person i think was the greatest 20th century lawyer and he was a story teller. And he was nearing the end of his life. He turned 80, the year i clerked for him. And kind of old 80. He was looking back on his life and however much a story teller he had been, he became more so and more so and we walked into his chambers and talked about the cases and do all our work and at a certain point, he talked about stories about the extraordinary career lawyering, at the trial level, a. M. At level, constitutional cases being this the fofere front of everything that was most important in the second half or actually in a significant period of time eradicating jim crow. And he was funny. But he also told the stories to have a point and we got that. And if you wanted to spend a year at a relatively young age, talking to somebody who could tell you something about justice, that was the man to do it with. I will be very grateful for that experience. Let me fast forward from your time as a law clerk to arrival at the Supreme Court as a new justice. Were you welcomed, were you hayesed or looking at things that were new or familiar . Little bit of both. Did they hayes you . Ok. I tell you how they hayesed me. This is true. They said, very particular rule for the junior justice, junior justice is the junior justice and they refer to the junior justice as the junior justice. You have specific jobs. They put you on the cafeteria committee. Its not a very good cafeteria. They hayes you all the time you actually. The food isnt very good. Ok. That counts. When we go into conference, its just the nine of us, we dont bring in any clerks, any assistants. Only the nine of us. So somebody has to do two things, the first is that somebody has to take notes so you can go out and tell people what just happened. And i take notes. That is the junior justices job. And you have to answer the door when there is a knock on the door. Literally, if there is a knock on the door than i dont hear it, there will not be a single other person who will move. They will stare at me and i figure out oh, somebody knocked on the door. These two jobs, the note taking and the door opening you can see how they can get in the way of each other. Even one sounds like a lot. And some of my colleagues, you say what doll people knock on the door for . Knock. Knock. Im not going to name names. Knock, no, maam someone forgot their gases. Knock. Knock. Justice forget their coffee. All that said, all that said, the warmth with which i was greeted by all my colleagues was striking to me and heres the first indication of that. My confirmation vote happened in the middle of the afternoon here in the United States in july. And i say in the United States the chief justice was in australia was at the time. It was 3 00 in the morning there. And literally, the moment that that vote occurred and i watched it in the solicitor germs office with all my colleagues and one of the assistants came into the room and said the chief justice is on the line for you. It was like, and he said, i want you to be the first to welcome you on board and congratulate you and he said you know, i guess we are going to spending the next 25 years together. [laughter] which is a little bit scary really. But i said, really, only 25 . Really . But he and everybody else has been warm and welcoming from the start and in ap way that is to a great credit of the institution and it is a great institution. What did it seem like when i got back how lit will it changed. I clerked there about 25 years earlier. But it was still like remarkably the same institution, using the same procedures, almost a little bit laughbly. In those 25 years, it has been a communication revolution, but seemed to have passed the supreme coordinate by a little bit. But in great ways, that the institution operates ellie efficiently and college yachtly. The first day on the job. The chief justice took me all around to the different offices in the court, the Clerks Office the library, the Publications Office and every single place i went into, somebody said, i remember you from when you were a clerk. It is a great place to work. Little bit nervous about that, too. What was i like that back then. So it didnt seem surprising in the way it operated and just warm and welcoming. Let me ask you about how it is that you interact with the justices your colleagues outside of conference when you are not having to take notes and open the door and the communications revolution. When you have a legal issue or a concern about a particular spin that has been circulated, how do you talk to your fellow justice eggs, are you walking down the hall and shooting emails or different from that . Often you write and that is write rather than talk. Especially if you are commenting on or criticizing a written piece of work or an opinion, you know, it often takes a writing to explain what you mean and why you think something needs to be fixed. And the precision that you can get through a written memo is actually a good deal higher than if you just walked in and put your feet in and say here is what im thinking about your opinion. Once an opinion has come in, is in writing. People will say, i really hope to join you, but there is this aspect of the opinion that i dont quite agree with and heres a way that would make me feel comfortable. And literally we send these memos somebody from the chamber whose job is to walk them around the building. They are being walked around the building. Yes email has not yet hit the United States Supreme Court. I find that astonishing, they have a set of lawyers interacting with colleagues. It is an aattachment to tradition, it encourages there has been a lot of emails that i have sent and i dont know about you that i just pushed the send button. I try not to do that. Do you do a memo and write it and look it at again when someone brings it into you to sign and worst Case Scenario you have the opportunity to say no way, stop. So thats part of the way we communicate. But, different ones of us talk more or less. Im a schmoozer. I do. I Wander Around and talk to people. Sometimes its about opinions and sometimes its just about life. But, you know, ill go into you said steve breyer, we are on one end of the court and the carpet might be getting worn between our two offices. We go back and forth and talk br things that strike us in cases. Thats reassuring in a way. I want to turn now to ask you some questions about how you decide cases. Before doing that and in 30 minutes or so, we will have time to have people from the audience to ask questions but begin by asking you, what sorts of topics you think are fair game in scenarios like this. David suiter was was unwilling where black honmon was telling tales. What is your bouppedry . We speak best when we speak through our opinions. So it tends not to nime not going to talk about any peppeding cases or any case that might come before me as i look down the road. But i tend to think that we put our opinions out there the whole idea of the way we operate, we give reasons the way we make a decision and those reasons are the best statement we could come up what of why we have done a certain thing and unlikely to be improved upon as you do the lecture circuit. Doesnt mean i dont talk about some past opinions that i have been a part of. Bru i tend to like a bit more talk about the institution and how it operates as opposed to opinions. Its not like heres my philosophy and i randomly apply it to everything that comes before it. Its not as topdown as that would suggest. Even saying that what kind of philosophy . I might have something to say how you interpret statutes. Are you interpreting the constitution . What do you want to hear about . Id like to hear about the constitution and the equal protection clause and due process clause so when you get these grand, abstract clauses, how do you approach those . This is hard. The first thing and absolute most important thing is to look at the text of that statute. Trumps Everything Else if the text is clear. If youre entitled to the due process of law and equal protection of law, trying to give that content and meaning, it cant be done by just staring at the words. How do you do it . One possibility is that you look to try to figure out what the drafters thought that it meant. What it would have meant to them living in that time. And for a lot of the constitution, 1789 for the parts you said its 1868, then you come up with a list of practices. Heres what they thought this prohibited. Heres what they thought it did not prohibit. And i think thats not a good way of going about the enterprise. One way you know that is it leads to results that are simply unten an. What did the framers think equal protection meant . The framers did not think equal protection meant you had to desegregate schools and didnt mean that the massgony laws were invalid. We know those things. Any methods that get you to results that are untenable living in the world we live in cant be an altogether good method. But you also but its really important, one of the reasons why some people are attracted to that and this is really important. Is that they think it provides a way of disciplining judges and judges have to be disciplined. Judges cant just go in there and say i think this and its just my personal values and my personal preferences. So there has to be ways of disciplining and kind of cob fining the inquiry and if its not that, it has to be Something Else and what are those things . I would say that you start with the original meaning. I think in some sense were all originalists in the sense that thats one of the things we look at. For me i think its the history over time and its not just history at a particular moment but its the history of our republic in a certain sense. We had not these clauses but a very interesting case last year involving the president s recess appointment power. And one of the really interesting things about Justice Breyers opinion for the majority is how much it sort of looked at the broad sweep of our history, so not just what everybody thought in 1789 but how this clause has actually worked in our country for twoplus centuries. So thats important. And i myself am a big precedent person. Some people call it a sort of common law constitutionalist but i think really hard about the way the law of interpreting the due process clause or the equal protection clause has developed over time in case after case after case after case and try to think of the principles that have emerged in all of those cases and partly this is not departing from precedent where its set but partly its trying to understand what has underlay all of that precedent and how the principles that have emerged over many, many decades of thinking about these provisions apply in a particular case. Another phrase that gets thrown away when people talk about potential philosophy and these clauses is judicial restraint. Do you consider yourself an advocate for judicial restraint or someone who practices judicial restraint and if so what does that concept mean to you . I would say yes sometimes but no, not other times. This is one of the hardest things of being a judge and you have to know what judges should not be getting into. You have to be able to say i have my job and its not this. Its not a legislative job. Its not a executive job. And to let those institutions do what they are supposed to do and what they do probably a whole lot better than you would do it, you have to let them operate in their spheres where they have competence and where they have legitimacy. But at the same time, a very significant part of any judges role especially at a highest court, its to decide when a particular act, a legislative act or executive act goes too far, goes beyond the boundaries the law has set whether by statute or the constitution. And you cant abdicate that role. Its an important part of why youre up there. So when a legislature violates a best understanding as its emerged many decades and many cases of, say the equal protection clause, you have to say, you know sorry you went too far. Thats part of my job and will involve validating a piece of legislation but its appropriate for me to do so. Let me ask you a more specific question about how it is that you consider the justices can consider the relationship between the court and the political branches. Are there suggestions made sometimes that Supreme Court justices ought to think about political reaction or sometimes people call it the backlash, that a particular decision might generate . And i have in mind arguments like one Justice Ginsburg published when she was a Circuit Court judge saying the court moved too fast when it adopted or decided roe vs. Wade or the courts use of the all deliberate speed formula in brown versus board of education. There was an article of this kind published by david cole as an oped piece urging the court in the gay marriage cases not to move too fast because of the backlash it might provoke. Is that kind of thing something justices may per missablying about and should in these cases . I dont want to talk about it in reference to any particular issue but i will say this first i think its superrare that the justices do or that they should or for the most part you have a job to do and the job is applying the law as best you can and, you know probably in most cases, these kind of issues dont come up at all or if they come up in a way where its just not worth thinking about. If you said to me is it ever worth thinking of that . I wouldnt say no to that. But it seems to me at least some part of being a judge you say what makes a great judge, theres something about sort of wisdom and wisdom might Say Something about the kinds of issues that youre talking about but i dont want to i think for the most part, we probably, when we think of the sort of questions youre talking about, probably wont get it right anyway, like what do we know . And i think you have to have a lot of humility about your ability to know any of these kinds of predictions. This is the way it will turn out. Thats the way it will turn out. And, you know, we have one job to do, which is to apply the law as best we can. That job is really hard. Theres going to be a lot of differences about what that means in a given case. But its differences in the realm of legal interpretation. And i think i i think we should be wary of going beyond that. A lot of people today when they look at the court see a court that seems more polarized along liberalconservative fault lines than in the past, including during the times when we clerked or before that. Do you agree with that judgment about the court and if so, should we be concerned about it . Yeah. I think people overstate it. And one way to think about this is that if you look at how much we agree on, we actually agree an incredible amount of the time. Nine people its hard to get nine people to agree to anything right . So last year all nine of us agreed 60 of the time. 60 of our opinions were unanimous which is quite something because we only decide the hardest cases and almost all the cases are those that produced splits in the lower courts where people have found things to argue about and notwithstanding that all nine of us unanimously decided on the right answer. And then add to that, you know, you have a lot of 81s and 72s and then ones that are divided but not divided along what people would think of the stereotypical lines. Which are fun, you know, when you confound people like that. But all of that said, it is absolutely true that in some number of cases every year and we do about 80 cases a year and lets call it in about 10 cases, and often these are the 10 cases that are most high profile and theres no getting around that, that we are going to split. And on pretty predictable lines. There are four of us who think one thing and there are four of us who think the other thing and then we wait and see what Justice Kennedy does. [laughter] and thats not its really i think unfortunate now, there has been that kind of split for a long time, that people have not been able to say has anything to do with republicans and democrats because folks like your boss, the person you clerked for, Justice Stevens was appointed by a republican president but was often on the more liberal side of the court and justice suter as well. Now people can talk about it as though it has something to do just with democrats and republicans. I dont think theres a single one of us that experiences law in that way and that experiences what were doing in that way. It doesnt have to deal with politics in that you know, in the way you would find across the street in congress but it does have to do with the kind of issues we were talking about before, judicial methodology and does have to do with how you read some of these very abstract provisions in the constitution. And, you know, theres no getting around the fact that we are split in that way in some of those cases. They tend for that reason not to be the cases that i most enjoy, that i love it. When were really all in there trying to persuade each other and you know that persuasion is possible and you know that that kind of stereotypical split is not going to happen. Thats the most fun part of the job. A lot of people would think the marquee cases are the most fun of the job. Yeah. I remember once, literally my first conference and walked in and there were two cases on the agenda. One was a very high profile case, one you knew would be on the front page of the New York Times the moment we decided it and the other was a dinky procedural case. And you know, some procedural cases are important, this one was dinky. And the high profile case and was one of these ones where it was 54. The way we operate, its a little stylized, starts with the chief justice and he goes first and he reminds us all what the case is about and what the issues are and then he gives his views and he says you know so i vote to reverse or affirm or whatever it. And then it goes around in seniority order so i always speak ninth. Theres a rule that says nobody can speak twice before anybody speaks once, which is a very good rule if you speak ninth, you know. And then after that, we can if we want all break out in conversation together and then its not so stylized and just kind of all talking together. So this high profile case, come in and everybody went around the table and said his or her peace and got to me and i said my peace and then the chief justice who runs these things incredibly well just said ok, so, you know, its 54 this and then he went on to the next case. And the next case we did the same thing went around the table, but everybody had, like somewhat different views and it wasnt really clear where we were agreeing and where we were disagreeing. At any rate, the first case i think took us no more than 10 minutes. The second case took us 40. And i walked out and thought if anybody like if there were a fly on the wall here, theyd say what is going on with these people . 10 minutes on this, 40 minutes on that. But as ive now been there, i actually think it makes all the sense in the world that there are, you know, the occasional case where you kind of know that theres not going to be a whole lot of persuading done in the room. Everybody walks in, having a certain view, all really smart, really experienced people, theyve seen this problem before, they know what they think. And you say what you think but at that point, if you keep on saying what you think, honestly, youre just going to annoy each other. And its actually pretty important that we not annoy each other. But then when theres really persuasion that can be done, you know everybody really pitches in and tries to do it. As i said before, thats sort of the most fun part. That makes sense. Let me ask you one last question and i want to warn the audience or prepare the audience for the fact that at that point well be going out to you for questions. So heres the last one. About a week ago paul crugeman, Nobel Laureate member of this faculty wrote a New York Times oped piece accusing the conservative wing of the court of being corrupt because of its willingness to take cases attacking the Affordable Care act. I dont want to ask you about the cases, obviously, but want to ask if you have a reaction or are willing to share how americans should respond to that type of accusation. Its very strong language. It there any reason to worry about corruption at the Supreme Court . I mean no. I mean theres not a day in my job that i have ever thought that anybody was not doing everything that they do in utter, complete good faith, you know. And you can disagree with people and you will disagree with people. But everybody is trying to get it right. And everybody is in complete good faith and thats just ridiculous language, honestly. And, you know, its actually when i was solicitor general of course i would argue with the court every sitting but id also just go and watch the court when any of the people in my people in the office argued and i just sort of watched about 70 of the cases that year. And i used to think, man, this is how an institution of government should operate. And the people saw it. Day in and day out. Its like all these people who are coming to the bench ultraprepared, really having thought through things, really understanding the issues and the arguments, and asking really penetrating, excellent questions, and just trying to, you know, a little bit trying to persuade each other as we sit on the bench but also just trying to get it right. I think its an institution of government that really works. So i could not disagree more. Im very glad to hear you say that but not at all surprised. I studied this institution most of my life and i often have disagreed with it and particular justices on it but ive always believed all the justices are deciding cases on good faith about the basis of what the law is and under those circumstances we should be proud of that. Justice kagan has answered all these questions crisply and should remind folks what should be coming from the floor are questions, which questions end with a question mark. Sometimes the raising of the voice in there, typically shorter than the answers you expect to hair from justice kagan. [applause] so with that sort of reminder, or warning. Let me see. Do we have someone up at the top . Well say one thing about the stage, theyre albright lights. If theres someone in the absolute back row. Well start at the top if you could introduce yourselves and go on with your question. Hi, my name is aspen, im a freshman. My question is, should, in your opinion, former gatt legal decisions ever have any bearing on the kind of rulings but in the Supreme Court. Like should you cite these international decisions. Yes, yes. I think this is a kind of this issue is a lot more heat than light. There are a lot of people who seem to feel very strongly about this and im not quite sure i understand why. You know first off, sometimes everybody agrees that we should look to International Law or foreign law in deciding particular cases. If youre deciding a case about a treaty, you know, its really important to look to International Law and look to foreign law about,000 that treaty operates. I take nobody would disagree with that. And what some instead think is that one should never look to foreign law with respect to peculiarly domestic issues. And on the one hand i kind of think the way i see some of my colleagues do that i dont quite you know, i think its kind of mischaracterized that nobody in our court would use that like, those decisions are winding or that theyre president or anything like that. But theyre more using those decisions in a way you might cite a law review article like, you know, heres something that somebody thinks. And now im going to tell you whether i agree with that or not. So i think that on the one hand people get a little spun up about this more than they should. I wail say on the other side this, is that i dont think ive actually ever chited one. And there are times when ive had the opportunity to do so you know when maybe some other person who was writing the decision might have. I guess for me the reason is we have we are trying to interpret our own execution and own laws and we have a very rich constitutional tradition. And also in some ways a distinctive constitutional tradition. So for me if you cant find grounding for what you do in our own laws you shouldnt be doing it. And foreign sources come in to guild the lily, sort of. And my choice has been not to use them that way, not to use them at all but instead to make my best judgment about what are constitutional tradition and are cunl cases indicate, and you have to remember that unlike lots of countries we go back you know, there are new countries that look to older countrys laws but we have a pretty long tradition. So for me thats kind of enough. I tend not to and pretty sure will continue to do not to unless there is an obvious reason to do so unless the law or the case involving some question of international or foreign law. Despite the possible harm to my vision, let me say theres a hand in the middle here of this section. Can we get a microphone there . Thank you. Ok. So blind you here. We cant see you but can hear you. Go ahead, introduce yourself, please. My name is katherine friend. And actually, i am a huge fan of notorious r. B. G. If anybody has ever heard the phrase before is Ruth Bader Ginsburgs internet nickname. Im a huge fan of her, too. Anyways, i was watching an interview where she is was commenting on the hobby lobby ruling, and she said that she thinks that historically the Supreme Court has had a blind spot when it comes to women. And i would like to know what your reaction is kind of to the gender politics there and if youve seen that and if so do you think its stabilizing, progressing, what are your thoughts . Boy, youre putting me in a tough position there. Thesis an extraordinary position, i have to choose between one colleague and some other colleagues. I dont think i quite want to do that. As we sit, its a good question when i need this much time to figure out what im going to say about it. Look thats a case in which there are its a perfect example that even when we divide in this kind of 54ish way like we did in that case, its really important to understand that there are strong arguments on both sides of the issue. So i myself do not think of that as a, like, are you with women or not with women kind of case. I think there are, you know the question of how far religious liberty extends, there it was under a statute rather than under a constitution but the question of how to interpret that statute and when people should be able to opt out of general commitments is one of the most difficult cases in difficult areas of constitutional law and one where people both feel passionately on both sides and have a right to feel passionately on both sides. And so i guess i dont look at a case like that and say blind spot or not blind spot. I look at it, a case like that, and say, you know, this is what makes constitutional law so hard is that there are real clash in values and principles at work. And that case is a perfect example of it. Why dont we go down here partly to avoid blind spots in our own eyes right now. Really, really. Theyre talking about blind spots. Exactly. Thank you my name is ryan, im a sophomore. My question is youre often in the dissent in a lot of those critical opinions. My question is do you have does the sort of frustration of not getting your way and getting the majority, is that outweighed by thence of history of writing a dissent that may later be sort of ruled into the majority such as like plessi versus ferguson or other notable dissents . Another unrelated question is Professor Robert george has said that everyone who got an a in con interp is sitting on the Supreme Court right now and im curious if thats true. I dont think i ever took it, honestly. I can guarantee its not true. [applause] but your question is, is it hard to lose, is that what your question is . Of course its hard to lose. My god, ive just told you im a competitive person, i like going out and shooting things you know. [laughter] you know, its funny because i was recently there was a big kind of convention, a Judges Convention of all the appellate judges and somebody asked me a question like this, like whats the best thing about your time in the court and whats the worst thing and i hadnt thought about what is the worst thing. I thought what was the worst thing . I know what the worst thing is, coming back from conference and not being in the majority on an issue that you think is important and you have strong views about. And, you know, the days that i come back from conference in that position, you know, sometimes i could punch a hole through the wall. [laughter] so is it mitigated . Is that what you asked me, is it mitigated by your opportunity to write some fierce dissent . Not really. But i enjoy writing dissents, except for the fact that they are in dissent, which is annoying. I like writing them for different reasons. Different kind of dissents and the ones in the important cases where you do feel in the way that you said, im writing for the future, that i hope that this issue will remain on our legal agenda, so that some years down the road, people will come back to it, and if not, overrule this case, you know, go in a different direction with respect to with respect to constitutional position it. With respect to constitutional position it. When you are writing a dissent like that, you know, you do feel a little bit of a sense of responsibility. I want to make the best case i can. So our audience in the current state understands whats wrong with this opinion and also to some future audience understands what is wrong that opinion and maybe that will include five members of the Supreme Court. And, you know, and i do think about those things, how do i convey to people whats so wrong about what my colleagues have done, how do i convey in a way that suggests what the options are for the future. Look at top we have couple of them here, but a person who has a grayishgreenish shirt. Im making things difficult for our runners. Im a law professor at the university of iowa and a member of the institute of the advanced studies. You are a ringer. You look very young. The chief justice has said some things fairly dramatically about the role of scholarship in his decisionmaking in references to approaches to 18th century bulgaria and so forth and i would like to ask you what you think about the conversation between the Legal Academy in general and the court . Do you read things that academics write about the laws, do they influence your decisionmaking process . I think he is right as to one thing, that there are just many things that law professors write about that arent particularly relevant to us. Thats ok. We arent the only audience for law professors. Law professors should not think of themselves as Supreme Court clerks. Often, law professors are speaking to legislators to reallife practicing lawyers. Law professors are speaking to other communities within a university you want the legal historian to be speaking to the other legal historian. There are a whole range of audiences ear than the Supreme Court. And thats not only inevitable and thats how it should be. It would be a much narrower conversation in our law schools if the law now, so thats the fact of the matter that for many law professors there is no dialogue, but thats ok with me and it should be ok with them i guess. There are people who do really engage with what we do. And i often find things that are coming from the law professor world, whether an article or you see people blogging about these kinds of things and not writing full length articles but going on a whole number of sites and talking about the kind of cases we get in the issues we see. I sometimes think that what is written there is very useful and very interesting that leads me to ask questions and elites meet said he thinks through i have not thought about. Leads me to think about things i have not thought about. I suggest some other things are at issue in a way that i think is valuable. I think its a pretty happy story actually that law professors are not just focusing on us to the next and that they focus on us. I think they are contributing to the dialogue. Down here, if there is a question in the front row behind the camera . Hi, i am kennedy and i am a freshman. My question is two parts. What was the toughest decision you have been a part of . Which decisions are you most proud of . I will tell you the toughest one, it was earlier in the day and it was a case about violent video games. I will preface by saying i am usually pretty good at decisionmaking. I work hard and i read a lot and i think through things i hold and i talked to my clerks and other justices. It is not as though i may snap decisions for i am not usually an appetizer. I get on the information i think i need and make a decision. Agonizer. I do not a lot of hamlets. [applause] but, this one case i did, i was all over the map on. Everyday i looked up and thought , i would do a different angle or i was in the wrong place. It was a case about whether kids could buy violent video games without their parents permission. Which everybody things, not easy because kids can not going to violent movements. The movie system is a private system and not a government system. California had passed a law that says kids can buy violent video games. It do not defined violence all that well which was a problem. Even if he had, there might be other problems, First Amendment problems. I have to say everything it should be that you should not be able, if a parent doesnt want her kids to buy violent video games, attribute the apparent it should be it should be the parent efficiently that this law is ok. I cannot figure how to make the First Amendment to make this ok. The distinction, thats usually a higher subject to stricter scrutiny within a very good evidence not of the kind no one would normally need that the viewing or playing a violent video games was harmful. And so i cannot make it work under the First Amendment doctrine that we have and have had for a long time. I kept going back and forth and we ended up being sort of 54 on that important issue. I was in the five that said that the law should be invalidated. That is the one case where i think im just to not know. I just dont know if its right. What did you say . Proudest of . I dont im not like which of your children do you like vasquez were erected these opinion of your children do you like best . You write to these opinions and you are proud of. I am not going to give a talk one. Right in the very front here. Im a freshman. After here to talk about the respectful of different opinions that you guys take pride in on the court, i was wondering how you think you can apply it to the political sphere of spreading respectful disagreement . I would not presume to say. [applause] i am like into this little institution it may be it is better because it is a small institution, very personal institution, only nine of us and we know each other super well. And i i you wish that all of government what i really experience this institution today and there are great friendships and that there is an enormous amount of respect even in the face of disagreement. You wish that were so in all parts of our government and honestly you got me at how to make it happen. Let me look up, my eyes have recovered enough from the light. A head right back there under the bright light again. There we go. I didnt even see these. My name is isaac. I am wondering how the court thinks about president s precedence. I do not know what policies the ability so i will save my answer for precedent. We taken really seriously. Precedent predictability is an important value of the law. People should be able to rely on the law should not feel as if he keeps changing depending all gets to the particular court is a moment in time. Part of the way to prevent the courts politicization. And finally, it is part of what i view as a kind of judicial humility which is important that even if you think something at one moment in time, the facts that others that have gone before you thought Something Different should be a constraint on your. You may not be right they might have been right. And so i think, its important for that reason, too karen too. It cannot be the only question that you asked when it comes to reverse a decision was not a good decision or a bad decision . If that was the case then the doctrine of precedentce would have no real force. It has to overrule precedent and there has to be something more than that it is wrong. Next to the a variety of things. If you believe that the doctrine all around the president has changed over time and the precedent is out of whack with the rest of the legal universe. It could mean that the world has changed in some fundamental way that makes this precedent work differently than anybody ever thought it would. It could be because the precedent is unworkable in the sense of administering that you lay out a rule and expect judges to follow. And it turns out it is a very hard line that you have strong the judges drawn and judges are all over the place. It can be any of those things were more. There has to be some really good reason beyond the fact that i think they got it wrong that would lead you to overturn something career i am sure there are times in the years i served as a judge where i will vote to overturn a decision, but i hope it happens pretty rarely. Yes . Hi. Im a freshman here. You spoke about one justice has ivy league institution. When Loretto Lynch was nominated for attorney general, i began to wonder where she graduated from. I looked it up and she has not one but two degrees from harvard. What did you think this says about the accessibility of education institutions of graduate students who attend elite colleges . Is it fair to students who do not graduate from these elite schools that this type of essex facility is not available to them . Thank you. I am a little bit of partisan all Harvard Law School. [applause] when Loretta Lynch was nominated i thought, ok another one. [applause] but, that said, you raise a serious question. Is there are asked there are aspects that everybody focuses on with all of our institutions, people always think about racial and Economic Diversity in people always think about gender diversity and sometimes people talk in the court of our religious diversity as well. But there is this a way in which the court is an incredibly undiverse concert courts. One way has to do with where we all went to law school which is even more than you say. 1 5 of us went to harvard and five of those graduated from harvard in one graduated from columbia. And three privileged everybody is a harvard yale person. And just as real is extremely coastal court. If you count up the number of hours, the number of life years we have all spent on the it is superhigh. [laughter] a couple of people from california, Justice Kennedy is from california and Justice Breyer grew up there. And then a lot for easterners, a lot of new yorkers specifically. Justice thomas from georgia and justice and achieve justice is from the middebt and achieve justice and is from the midwest and spent much of his life Eddie Cheever justice is from the midwest. And the chief justices from the midwest. I got a lot of law schools. Not just the harvard once. [laughter] if people ask me about this all of the time and you can get people think well, how about us . Shouldnt we have access to this institution and should we feel as though this institution is seeking speaking to us . I think that is important. I do not think any of these metrics of diversity have all that much to deal with how we decide cases. I think its pretty rare that they do. The face who present to the world, i think people should think about how their government institutions a look to the world and whether they reflect the diversity of our country and diversity of our citizenry. This is one way in which this court clearly does not. And you would i think hope for it to be different from i am putting together funny story. I hope senator reed was not mind my telling you this. When i got nominated, you go through and they are ordered in this rant kind of way. Never written the first person i spoke to was senator reid and the majority leader of the senate. I walked into his office and he said to me, delighted to meet you. I told the president i need two things in a Supreme Court justice. You are one of them. I said all, hope that isnt all that important. I said what are the two things. The first when he said we have to have somebody was never in a court of appeals judge. I was not a court of appeals judge. Check your check. He said, i told the president will d