Transcripts For CSPAN Justices 20240704

It does disturb me when we talk about january 6, and people had nothing to do with january 6, so that shouldnt be what even came up. But we do know who did. Announcer were going to leave this now and thank you live to the National Governors Association Winter meeting with Supreme Court justices soto player and coney barrett, and spencer cox. And now please rise and welcome t. C. Washington to the stage to perform the national anthem. O say can you see by the dawns early light what so proudly we hail at the twilights last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight oer the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o say does that star spangled banner yet wave oer the land of the free and the home of the brave now approaching the podium is the executive director of the National Governors association, bill mcbride. Bill good afternoon, everyone, and behalf of everyone at the National Governors association, a very warm welcome to all of you today. Were pleased so many have joined us and we invite you to participate tomorrow, also. Tomorrows sessions will include a briefing from pollster frank lund followed by discussion on Artificial Intelligence issues with tech leader mark an dreessen and our final session tomorrow will be a roundtable discussion on housing issues led entirely by our governor. Three governor led task forces will meet tomorrow starting at 9 30, the task forces are economic redevelopment and revitalization, education and work force and Community Investment and Public Health and disaster response. Each task force has great speakers lined up, including commerce secretary romando and other task forces and check out these meetings tomorrow and stop by them. This Plenary Session is the highlight this year. Governor spencer coxs n. G. A. Chairs initiative is extremely timely given the extreme levels of polarization were seeing across the country. As the leading Bipartisan Organization representing our nations governors, its truly a testament to what the n. G. A. Stands for. Governors are stepping up to demonstrate its possible and imperative for republicans and democrats alike to disagree strongly without disliking each other. I think governor cox and our vice chair for their leadership and championing this effort and thank every governor today for being with us in bipartisan leadership and willing to Work Together for issues involving states and territories. We have a great session planned for you this afternoon and look forward to hearing from our esteemed panelists. Please join me in giving a warm welcome to the chair of the National Governors association, utah governor spencer cox. Ladies and gentlemen, its such an honor to be with you today, to see so many of you. We so appreciate our sponsors and everyone who makes the National Governors association possible. Thank you to bill mcbride and his team and incredible staff that put together another amazing meeting and most especially i want to thank all the governors who joined us here today. Thank you. We know its a busy time. And most of us have our legislators meeting right now. Mine ends next week and its a terrible time for me to be here. I have no idea what kind of trouble theyre getting into right now. But i love my legislators if theyre listening. And please pass those housing bills. I need them next week. Look, before i start, i want to make a pitch for your attendance at our summer meeting on july 11 and 12 in Salt Lake City. Not just because july 11th is my birthday and im sure you wouldnt want to disappoint me and not be there but more importantly, some of you came five years ago when governor herbert hosted the summer meetings and we want you to come back. We think youll very much enjoy the grand america, a grand hotel where well be hosting the meeting this year. Outside the room today and tomorrow youll find a booth from our utah office of tourism highlighting the mighty five, our five National Parks in utah with suggested itineraries and we would encourage you to bring your families and kids and grandkids and come and make a vacation out of it and have these five beautiful National Parks. We have close to 50 state parks and so many amazing opportunities to take advantage of. Park city is just a few minutes away from downtown Salt Lake City where well be hosting the meeting and southern utah is just full of amazing places that will just blow your mind and imagination. I also will offer a little teaser. Jerod and i have been talking with some high profile celebrities who are very interested about the work were doing and the possibility of a concert, were not sure we can pull it off but were going to try and if were able to pull it together its something you wont want to miss and its something you want to bring your families to, full of music and culture and how we can get this message of depolarization outside of this room and into the culture more broadly. I want to talk for a few minutes about this disagree Better Initiative. Most of it wont come at any surprise to those of you in this room but need to emphasize some of this data anyway. Study after study shows our social fabric is framed fast, trust in major institutions has plummeted over the years to historic lows and so has our trust in our neighbors. Republicans and democrats increasingly view the other side not just as misguided but immoral and dishonest and 30 is of americans have ended a family relationship because of politics. The proportion of americans who believe Political Violence is acceptable have reached new highs. Threats against members of congress have increased tenfold since 2016, not 10 , 10 times, while threats against federal judges have more than doubled. International groups who study these kind of things start classifying the United States as a nation on the path to becoming a failed democracy. One of those organizations, freedom house, actually said the United States is, quote, on one of the fastest downward trajectories of any country in the world over the last five years. Many in this room have quoted Ronald Reagan who said that liberty is just one generation away from extinction. Ive used that quote many times as every good republican does. And ill be honest with you, i would say it but i didnt really believe it. I thought come on, i mean, maybe that was true some day but its been 250 years. Weve got this figured out, were good. It turns out that were not good. The governors can tell when you weve had multiple meetings with National Security officials over the past year who warned us about this, we had ambassadors from allied nations tell us that they fear the world cant count on the United States anymore, but i want to be optimistic because there is some good news and think we all need it. The good news is this, its all based on a lie, or at least the misperception. Were actually not as divided as the conflict entrepreneurs would lead us to believe. Those same surveys show so much polarization and distrust, they also revealed the left and the right are wrong about each other. Voters attribute tremendous use to the other side that they dont views they dont actually hold. Each side believes the other side is statistically about 30 more extreme than they actually are. Groups like more in common are tracking this Perception Gap and the results are astounding. Our views, we give too much air time to combative voices who represent a tiny sliver of the population. A analysis from the pew research said a 1 4 of adult twitter uses generate 99 of political tweets. The other good news is there are lots and lots of elected officials modeling good behavior, and especially maybe more than anywhere else, nowhere else but the governors in this room. I want to offer a special thanks to all the governors who have been a part of this initiative so far and helped show our country the politicians that disagree passionately can still be friends. I stepped back in the room this morning in the white house as we were all mingling and just took note of the conversations that were happening. Unlike what most americans think, you all did not divide yourself into conservative and liberals and republicans and democrats. In almost every group of people talking, there were red and blue governors having conversations together. When we decided to do this initiative and focus on healthy conflict, i honestly wasnt sure if any of you would be willing to help us out and lend your voices but ive been blown out of the water by the response from governors and other elected officials. At the top of that list is our esteemed vice chair who has been with me every step of the way. I suspect and feel confident hes dedicated far more time to this initiative than any vice chair in n. G. A. History. Bill, i apologize, i should have done better. I lost track of how many times weve appeared together on podcasts or sunday morning shows, weve had phone calls together with celebrities interested in giving their voice and we participated in the event at Colorado State university who actually now has a course titled disagree better, graciously sponsored and hosted by governor polet and c. S. U. He highlighted our disagree Better Initiative in his state of the state address last month, and i dont know if the rest of you mentioned it but theres always next year. Thank you for your kindness and dedication, jerod. Let me mention a few other governors, laura kelly joined me for a fantastic event at the george w. Bush library in dallas last month and offered the prestigious lecture at kansas state last month and talked about the polarization and how to address them. And governor lamont led an event last fall with former governor rails about civil discourse in politics and our disagree better ad series has been very successful. We so far released ads with polis, full com, sununu, murray, holcomb, and others. Well be releasing two new ads, one with governors gordon and grisham and the other with the mayor of tuscaloosa and one features a great conversation about alabama football. Were excited to see that one. Well be recording several more ad this is week. If you havent had a opportunity we have a recording booth set up and would love to include you. So please join us if you havent been scheduled and are interested. For those of you who have not yet seen these videos, i want to show one, the most recent video released with governor wes moore and the republican mayor of lana coning, did i pronounce that right, wes . Thank you. Hes the mayor, jack colbrunn. Lets watch the video. Hi, im wes moore, democratic governor of maryland. And im jack colbrunn. We give you background and experiences. We do a lot of things differently and goes beyond eating at different restaurants. We can have our differences without being hateful. We can listen to the other side and ask questions. Dont get us wrong, differences matter. We wouldnt be maryland without people from big cities and small towns, justice warriors and talk show conspiracy nuts and everyone in between. We need them all. Were not asking everyone to vote for the same person and read the same news or even agree on the big issues. Were betting theres aer with way to disagree. In the end we might not be as far apart as we thought. Governor . Donald mind if i do. Thanks, man. Youre welcome. Together we can disagree better. Thank you, governor moore, that was fantastic. Thank you to the amazing team thats been doing this work with us. I want to say just a word about why we decided to produce these ads. 18 months ago Stanford University and a coalition of other universities conducted the strengthening democracy challenge, a mega study of 25 interventions which they narrowed down from 260 submissions to see whether and how much these various interventions would reduce animosity and support for Political Violence. One of the most successful was a video by my democrat opponent and myself in the 2020 election where we stood side by side and disagreed but didnt hate each other and both wondered what was best for our state. That ad was unbeknownst to us submitted to the stanford study and turned out to be one of the most successful interventions in lowering the feelings of Political Violence and animosity towards other people. That formed the basis for the disagree better ads were doing with the governors. Everything were doing is not just happy talk but based on evidence and science that we can, as leaders, help turn down the level of partisan animosity in our country. The point of all this is to help us actually accomplish stuff, which is not just toxic for our souls but it makes it really hard for those of us elected to solve problems and actually do our jobs. Certainly weve seen the dysfunction thats become the norm in congress. Now, there are lots of people that are really grateful for us as governors and what were doing. Theres a huge ecosystem of hundreds of organizations around the country trying to address polarization. Everyone from large philanthropies and grassroots organizations and academic scholars working to understand what works and what doesnt. Theyre all aware of what were doing and trying to accomplish and theyre cheering us on. Again, my sincere thanks to all who have participated and those planning to participate. Ill reiterate the idea behind these ads and everything we do with disagree better is not about compromise, its not. It really is not about compromise though we hope that we will find some compromise as we Work Together. Its not about being nice to each other, although heaven knows we need more niceness in our world. Rather, what were trying to do is help people understand that they can keep their passionate ideological positions without hating the other side or framing people who see things differently to a threat to america. The real threat i believe the most critical threat in our country today and not just in our country but across the world, because we need American Leadership and were losing it as were too busy hating each other, the real threat is the belief on both sides that the other side is trying to destroy our country. Its the Perception Gap that got boast sides thinking of breaking norms and institutions because they think the other side is going to do it if they dont. Ladies and gentlemen, thank for you what youre doing to make our country a better place. I truly wish that every american could see what i have seen in these rooms every time we get together, that there is hope for a brighter future. That we do have republicans and democrats who are devoted to solving problems, actually solving problems and getting things done. Theres an exhaustive majority out there. They exist. Theyre tired of whats happening in our country. Theyre desperate for anything and theyre losing hope quickly. We have to be the adults in the room once again. Its up to us as governors to show the American People that there is a reason to be hopeful and we can do that together. With that let me now turn the podium over to our amazing vice chair, the governor of the great state of colorado, jerod polis. [applause] jerod thank you, spencer, for those inspiring words. Its a privilege and honor to work alongside governor cox on this effort thats critical to our states, to our nation, to our future. As the title made clear, its not about giving up principles and not about agreeing on every issue but how to disagree better. Governor cox mentioned the recent course at Colorado State university that offered a disagree better course and proud to report back 50 students have completed that course. They have an additional 19c. S. U. Global employees that have taken the course. Prior to taking the course, 44 of students indicated they felt uncomfortable having conversations where they disagreed. And after the course, 100 said they were either comfortable or very comfortable having conversations where they disagreed. So thats the kind of work that of course formally or informally through popular communication campaigns we can spread some other great feedback anonymously sent in by students, very informative, learned more from this than any other type of course. Another student said this course is engaging and inspired me to research deeper. Another student said, i thought this was a good course for learning how to disagree better. So how we handle the disagreements we have says a lot about who we are but also about the net result we can achieve as a society. First of all, making sure that people know its ok to disagree. In fact, as Arthur Brooks said, almost no one is ever insulted into agreement. And so again, even on a purely pragmatic basis, if your goal is to move or change the status quo, youre unlikely to get there by demonizing or attacking your enemies that doesnt exactly convince them what youre going to do is correct. Let me be clear, its not just an initiative or exercise for the sake of talking about it. Our democracy depends on the success of people being able to disagree with one another passionately, emphatically, but being able to Work Together with Mutual Respect and dignity. The disagree Better Initiative is an important reminder to all our fellow americans theres a healthier, more productive way to deal with conflicting opinions. Governor cox and i never disagree on whether colorado or utah has better skiing. We all know its colorado. But what we can agree on is we want to make sure that Winter Sports are available for the next generation of kids we support the industry and all the great opportunities and Outdoor Recreation that opened up accessibility across our two states and is so many others that are proud to host Winter Sports p. This work isnt always easy. If it was easy it would have been done already. Its truly our differences that make us stronger. Thats true for the entire nation. I share the passion that governor cox brings to this topic of how as a nation we can disagree better and be more effective in solving the big problems rather than screaming past one another, talking and listening to one another. Thank you, governor cox, for this powerful and timely initiative that weve leveraged n. G. A. Resources to help make sure governors across the country are doing our part to not just sit on the sidelines and complain about Civil Society or the media but to roll up our leaves and do our part as leaders, to help bring people together around how we can disagree better. Back to you, governor cox. [applause] spencer i will stipulate colorado has the best snow east of utah. Come to deer valley. Were having a near record february for snow. Its a great time. Ladies and gentlemen, when we decided to take on this initiative, one of my concerns is we never dream big enough and we had this crazy idea, wouldnt it be amazing if we had two Supreme Court justice, with a liberal and conservative onstage together. We were told yeah, they dont do that but we dreamed anyway. Now, im not going to introduce them but i am going to introduce the person who is going to introduce them. I have a dear friend who serve asked on the d. C. Court of appeals from 20052020 and is now a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School and fellow at the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young university and also recently completed service on the president ial commission on the Supreme Court and has been one of the most eloquent voices in america for the idea of Civic Charity and helped shape my view on the importance of healthy conflict. In fact, probably no one has had more influence on my views about polarization than this man. Please help welcome tom griffith to the stage and hes responsible to getting our Supreme Court justices here. Judge griffith. [applause] thank you for that overly generous introduction. Im very excited to be here today with two people who i greatly admire, so if youll allow me, they actually need no introductions but i want to give them one, ok. To my right is justice sonja soto may other who was born in the bronx to natives that were puerto ricans. Sonia graduated from princeton cum laude and from yale where she was a journalist. She worked for the legendary robert morganthou. And in that capacity she prosecuted everything from petty crimes to homicides and by all accounts was known as an imposing prosecutor. Following her time as a prosecutor, Justice Sotomayor focused on property litigation. President george h. W. Bush appointed her to the u. S. District court for the Southern District in new york in 1991. The baseball fans among us revere Justice Sotomayor and saved baseball with the strike. Shes a passionate yankees fan, dont held that against her and im a nationals fan and shes kind and generous to me. President clinton appointed Justice Sotomayor for the Second Circuit of new york city in 1977 and president obama appointed her to the United States Supreme Court in 2009. To my far right is Justice Amy Coney barrett. Justice barrett was born in new orleans and grew up in old metarie and grew up in memphis, tennessee and the law school at notre dame where she was first in her class and the executive editor of the law review. Following law school she clerked for the legendary Justice Silverman on the court i used to sit the d. C. Circuit and on the Supreme Court for justice antonin scalia. Professor noah feldman, a political progressive on the faculty at Harvard Law School, clerked at the Supreme Court the same turn that Justice Barrett did. Justice barrett, professor feldman wrote, quote, of the 30 some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated the top of their Law School Classes and gone and done prestigious clerkships before coming to work at the court, barrett stood out. When assigned to work on an extremely complex, difficult case, especially one involving a hard to comprehend scheme, i would first go to barrett to have her explain it to me, end of quote. After practicing law in washington, d. C. , Justice Barrett joined the faculty at notre dame where she was thrice selected distinguished professor of the year. President trump appointed her to the u. S. Court of appeals to the seventh circuit which sits in chicago in 2017 and the United States Supreme Court in 2020. We are honored to have both of you here today. Governor cox mentioned how this came about. It was at a meeting last spring where he had convened a lot of people to talk about what he wanted to do with the initiative but i was one of many in that group, and i raised my hand and made what was kind of a bold assertion and that was that i would like the American People to get an inside view into how the federal courts do their business. For 15 years i sat on the d. C. Circuit. I wish the American People could see what i saw, dedicated people, passionate disagreements, but all done based on reasoned arguments, civility and respect. So i made this bold point and then i went further and i said, i think we can even get some Supreme Court justices to come talk about that. And at that point i thought what have i done . What have i said . I better produce. And fortunately it was easy to do. Because these are two fabulous jurists, great americans who are dead dedicated to the civility of discourse. So what were going to do in the next hour, im going to lead a conversation. Ill ask some questions that hopefully get things flowing. And the point of it is to show the governors and their staff and any others, giving you an inside view of what goes on at the Supreme Court. And my bet is that after you hear this, youre going to come away thinking at least two things, the Supreme Court is an impressive institution, an impressive institution. The second one, youre going to be surprised to hear how well they get along, even though they disagree about passionate issuet issues. Lets start with this. Justice sotomayor . Can i give you an example to try to find compromise in extreme passion. You know im an avid yankee fan. I grew up in the bronx, the newspapers said i grew up in the shadow of yankee stadium, thats not true. They are prone to exaggeration, as you know. However, i came to d. C. And the nationals were here. Theyre a National Team and mine is an American League team. I went to the owners of the nationals and said, i can come watch your team. I will root for the nationals except when theyre playing for the yankees, and i wear my aaron judge shirt with the nationals hat. Justice griffith there it is. Justice sotomayor theres always a way. Justice griffith i thought wed discuss how the Supreme Court goes about its work. What i propose is Justice Sotomayor, if youll go first and explain to the audience how a justice prepares for the oral argument, whats the work that goes into the preparation for that argument, and then maybe following that, Justice Barrett can tell us what goes on at oral argument, and then from there well ask a couple more questions. But could you get a start and let folks know how you prepare for oral arguments . Justice sotomayor we have an initial exposure to a case in very general terms, when a petition for sertiari comes in and every week or just about every week we review those petitions and at a conference discuss which cases were going to grant to hear. So that exposes us a little bit to what the main issue is and what the tension is among the circuits because thats part of the memo that comes to us telling us if theres a circuit split or not, a disagreement among the Circuit Courts. So most of us prepare well, i cant say im speaking for all nine justices, our individual preparation time can be different, but i think im going to speak in general terms about what most of us do generally in what order so far to say, i, for example, want to read a case before i receive a bench memo from my law clerks because i want to form my opinions or views begin to percolate before someone else has spoken in my ear. And so i can very early in the cycle of preparation tend to read the briefs first. I read the lower court opinion, if theres was a disrecord in the Circuit Court one, and often in that briefing, ill be told who the major opponent is to the view thats being raised by the party bringing the case. And so ill try to find that Circuit Court opinion. If i dont figure that out from reading the brief, then i always ask my law clerks to present me the Perfect Court opinions that give each side of the argument. So i have a preliminary, very brief conversation with my law clerks and say ive read this, this is my intuitive sense, i dont really know the answer to this, i think maybe the answer to that depends on this fact or that fact or im just unsure about that for this reason. So i send them at least with an idea of the issues that remain in my mind after reading the brief. But they are charged by me to ensuring that my read doesnt color their views. I instruct my law clerks before they come to me with a bench memo that their job is not to support my intuition but to fight it if im wrong because our job is to get it right. So i always want to hear both sides of the argument fully. Then ill ask them for what theyringing. But im always trying to do the counter to their thought. Before oral arguments, i ask for my briefs, my memos from them before so if i have followup questions they can answer them for me. I then spend that week before i ask them for followup questions and the days before argument, im reviewing the issues with them and talking about the questions i should ask. And thats pretty much prep. Now, youre asking am i talking to my colleagues in this time frame . No. For virtually all of us, our preparation for oral arguments is individual, and most of us do not talk to each other before oral argument. The reason for that i think is for each of us to absorb the information thats coming to us as best we can to form our own initial thinking and wait until argument and the conference that follows argument to hear the counterveiling views in more detail. So i think that process in some form is shared. I know that a few of my colleagues, i think the chief is well known for this, doesnt ask for a bench memo from his law clerks. They spend a period of time before oral arguments discussing the cases verbally, and he goes back and forth and asks them questions and he studies the case through a question and answer period. I had a colleague, Justice Stevens whose bench memo was limited to an eight by 13 page paper, one paper, and theyd have to type as much information as they could from the top to the bottom on the reverse side. Now, i saw some of those papers, the precipitation was too small for me to read. So i would never introduce that. Others, Justice Ginsburg, these are things i think are known to the public, would let her law clerks decide which cases were interesting to them and prepare bench memos only on those cases. Im not that generous. So i also believe you can miss things. Were all incapable, especially when youre asking us to absorb such a mountain of information, were all capable of missing things, so i want my views to be backstopped by someone else who has read the materials in case i have missed something or didnt pay particular attention to something that was important. So i find the bench memos useful for me. Having said that, thats generally then what happens is the first time you hear us talking to each other is that oral argument. Thats why for the litigators, lawyers in this room, why they often complain that they think were talking to each other rather than to them. Youre right. Because in the end, we have to make the right decision and so were talking to each other through you to try to get the points out so that the points that we believe are important are going to be understood by everyone, not necessarily accepted, but that everyone understands the value of the points we think are important. At any rate, as i mentioned, every justices practices probably differ a little bit, but i think what i do is within the outline of what most of us do. Justice griffith thank you very much. Justice barrett, would you add anything to that or take us to oral argument. Justice barrett i read the brief first and have my clerks do bench memos. Its helpful for them and they say, and i found this as a law clerk, having to write it out really forces them to marshall knowledge of the record and of all of the cases, and i benefit from that, too, because when we go back and forth over it, they know it inside and out. So i read the briefs, talk to the clerks, and one thing to ought to what Justice Sotomayor said of not talking to each in advance, we dont but our law clerks do. Our claw clerks are very collaborative. Our nine justices between us we have 36 law clerks and they Work Together. I tell my law clerks were youre not free to represent my views unless i tell you its ok. You can talk about your own views with the law clerks in the building and encourage to you do so and they share information and ideas and debate in ways that are very helpful to me. Ill pick up with oral argument, Justice Griffith asked. You prepare for oral arguments. You go in with questions that you have. Some questions that you might want to put on the table in case there are ones your colleague might not have thought of or your chance to express your views to colleagues. For any of you, i encourage you, if you never have, maybe one day if youre on a commute or cutting the grass or something to listen to an oral argument firm, just relevant to the state, we had a few weeks ago the oral arguments in the colorado ballot case. My sister is not a lawyer and listened to it and it was a longer argument and she came away saying wow, it was long but there is debate about the issues and you can really hear people going back and forth about the law and youll see if you listen to a few different arguments that they follow a format, the advocate, because in the days before i was on the court, it was difficult for advocates to even get a word in at the outset, so the court before my time allowed advocates, and in the practice of allowing advocates a few minutes in the beginning where they can speak uninterrupted and make their case and then after that justice thomas, the senior associate justice, gets a few minutes to ask his questions uninterrupted and then the floor is open. And one thing that people dont know, law clerks are sometimes surprised, judge griffith knows everything in the judiciary, the courts of appeals to the Supreme Court is done by seniority. So im second most junior, so Justice Sotomayor, justice gorse itch justice gore century. But if i see Justice Sotomayors light is on, shes senior to me, im not jamming in my question but if i see her light is on i wait and she asks her question and then i can ask my question next. If im speaking Justice Jackson is the only one junior to me, and so on. So we do have those rules and we each also try to keep an eye on our time so none of us is monopolizing the floor too much. And some questions i want to ask oral advocates in advance but some questions just develop in the course of the argument. So i spent many years as a law professor and in some respects, oral argument is kind of like a classroom back and forth where youre asking talking about ideas, exploring ideas, asking questions. And oral argument matters. I have changed my mind even at the Supreme Court, certainly the seventh circumstance the but changed my mind based on an an oral argument that matters to the scope. Justice sotomayor asked more than once in the last two years, how do you want us to write this opinion. That can be a hard advocate to answer but if the advocate doesnt have a good answer, that advocate is in trouble. So it can affect the scope, how we think about the opinion, what we decide in the opinion and even the result of an opinion. So oral advocacy is really important. We have adopted postcovid one feature to our oral arguments, the end of the advocates we have a cleanup round and well go around and in sequential order of seniority get an opportunity to ask a few questions and thats taken some of the pressure off because of the seniority system in particular, i might feel like i had to be very aggressive or really work hard to get my questions in and as one of the most junior justices might lack an opportunity to do so if michigan only chance is in the main round. The cleanup round gives each other a chance to ask any other questions and thats been a positive development for the pace or maybe the frantic level. Justice griffith thank you. Two more steps id like you to describe to the audience. The next step is after oral argument, the conference of the justices, tell us what you can about that and ill ask you to do that, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Barrett, if you could describe the opinion process. Justice sotomayor before i answer that i want to make an observation that i think should be pertinent to everyone here. Were present with each other and listening to each other at argument. Were present with each other at conference. Were listening to what each other is saying. We may disagree with it but we are listening. I think what is happening regrettably in too many legislative processes, because theres cameras in your chambers, legislators and others are not sitting in the room anymore. And when i was being interviewed during my senate process, the speakers were on the tv screen muted while the senator was talking to me. If youre not listening, youre not going to be able to think about what other people are saying. And so i do think that that time you take to listen is critically important in informing decisionmaking for everyone. Having said that, ill keep it very short. Our conferences, like everything else, go by seniority. A case is called. Every friday we poll Justice Griffith no staff, just the justices. Justice sotomayor no staff, just us. Each case is discussed on a friday starting with the first case on monday to the last case on wednesday. We sometimes break it up to wednesday and friday so we hear mondays case we talk about mondays case on wednesday and tuesday and wednesday on friday. Sometimes like today when theres a holiday, we talk about all four cases today. The chief starts with the first case, he gives his view. He says this is what the case is about in one sentence because we all know what its about but just to recall it to mind. And then he gives his reasons for why a particular outcome is what hes recommending. He might or might not address why he thinks the counterarguments are not valuable. The next justice gets their return. And that justice either agrees with the chief and often as happens says, i agree with the chief but i would put more emphasis on this or i have a added reason for doing this or im really not moved by this part of what the chief laid out. I think another approach might be helpful. You keep going down the line doing exactly the same thing until someone says, well, i disagree and i would do Something Different. And that person then takes the chiefs role and lays out why they would do Something Different and the reasons for it and what their counters are to the other side. And by the time you get through all nine people speaking, and we dont interrupt each other during that period. Thats a fixed rule. We give each person in order their time to speak their mind. At the end of that, occasionally theres a more open discussion back and forth, someone will have said something that someone feels wasnt addressed at all and theyll jump in. But that is kept to a minimum. But by the end of that process, we will have a vote on the case. The chief then, if he is in the majority, assigns which of the justices who voted with him gets to write that opinion. If there is a dissent, hes not among the dissenters. If hes among the dissenters he assigns who will write the dissent, if hes not, if im in the dissent and im the first person, im the most senior, and anyone who has joined me afterwards, i can then assign it. So the process is fairly fixed but because of this order, we do have an opportunity to have everyone express their views, and we do have a period where we can actually engage each other if we choose in following up the conversation. Justice griffith Justice Barrett, anything else to add . Justice barrett ill talk about the opinion writing process. The law clerks are surprised by how little collaboration there is at the opinion writing process. Ill say im writing an opinion, ill write the draft and then we circulate it to all the other chambers, and thats when the collaboration begins. Its a different thing to write for a Multimember Court than it is to just write for one person. So i take very seriously when im charged with writing for the majority of the court, im trying to represent what people said at conference. This is another place where theres compromise. I might try to find a narrower line and ill write an opinion more narrowly to enable more people to join it knowing if it were written more broadly, then some people would drop off. Thats a place on the court being on the court is a little different than being in a legislature because you dont want to compromise and i would think Justice Sotomayor would agree with this, we dont sausage make what we think the constitution requires. Its not give a little or get a little on a bill. But we can compromise on how we present things, how narrowly or broadly we write them, whether were willing to let certain arguments drop out and not do things just because you can or just because you have the pen. So that is a real place where we try very hard. And even when you can have what we call contingent joins or noncontingent joins where you might make a suggestion, ill only join your opinion if you make that change or you might have a suggestion, im happy to join but would you consider changing and theres a culture on the court that even if the change is just a suggestion, everyone tries to go as far as they possibly can to incorporate the suggestions others make. It wouldnt work very well to have a my way or the highway attitude in that opinion drafting process. Justice griffith great. Thank you very much. What you all just described is a collegial body, right . How important is collegiality to the work of the court . And what are some of the things the court does to nurture that culture of collegiality that you think would be of interest to the governors . Justice sotomayor i had the opportunity recently to speak about this at sandra day oconnors Memorial Service at the court. The professor you mentioned, noah feldman, wrote a book which is a good read, its called scorpion and it was about the Supreme Court during the 1930s and 1940s and how the introduction of f. D. R. s justices changed the court. And it was not a good period for the court. It was a lot of animosity, open animosity among the justices. They publicly excoriated each other. Some of them wouldnt even meet for lunch together in the courthouse. And others, if they saw he describes this in his book so im not speaking about something i know personally but its in his book. Justice barrett even though they were appointed by the same president. Justice sotomayor exactly. And if they were coming down the same hallway, they would turn and go down a different hallway. Thats not a time period the court should take any pride, ok. At one moment we were together as justices and we were talking about Noah Feldmans book and some justice asked, when did that change . And someone said, it was this chief justice or someone else said it was that chief justice and my colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was when a woman came to the court. And in some ways he was absolutely right. Sandra day oconnor, some of you may not know, she had been Arizonas Senate leader for many years before her career in the Arizona State system. She was renowned for being a politician who got things done and she got things done by bringing together both sides of the aisle. She would i understand, weekly parties at her house. Barbecues. She would insist on lunches together and other activities together, in the belief that if people got to know each other as people, they would be able to transact business more efficiently, and with a more open mind. She turned out to be right but she introduced a very different either those on our court, which she started to indoctrinate people into believing and accepting was important. That being collegial with each other was critical to the reputation of the court and the functioning of our court. She turned out to be right. She started by insisting everyone come to lunch, and there are colleagues that told me when they missed too many lunches, she would go into their office, sit down in front of their chair and say why have you been missing . They would give an excuse would say not good enough, and she would grab them by the arm, the assistant left behind, tell them they are supposed to be with me. [laughter] she had the personality to do Something Like that, it worked. When the chief came to the court, she relayed her message to me and im sure everyone who followed. We are pretty good at maintaining that. She also introduced looking at westerns in the court. She would corral her colleagues to come watch westerns. The last year he was with us, Justice Breyer played his favorite film. I cant tell you it became my favorite but i watched it with him, ok . The point is it doesnt change principle. We still have disagreements on the court and we still have fundamental disagreements on how you approach issues and we dont compromise on those things, but there are ways to take the edge off the disagreement, like narrowing an opinion. Deciding to leave a question not before you for another case so you have time to see how your ruling affects the courts below. You can decide not to decide an issue in a case and leave it open. There are so many things you can do to bring the temperature down and function together as a group to get something done that has a benefit in the law. For me, collegiality is at the center of our ability to Work Together and to Work Together in a way where when we disagree, our oens are sharp pens are sharp but that never transfers into our relationship with one another. Gov. Cox tell us about these lunches, where are they and what you talk about . Justice barrett the lunch is a routine of the court. Our schedule is roughly two weeks of oral arguments a month and the other two weeks is writing opinions and preparing to start over again the next month. Those two weeks we are in session, we have lunch together four times a week, after arguments and after the friday conference. That is a lot of time together and i think everything Justice Sotomayor was saying drives home the point that for collegiality you have to spend time together because you have to know one another. I think one of the worst postcovid developments we have is people spend less time facetoface. I think it is easier to demonize or resent someone when you are not interacting with them in flesh and blood on a regular basis. Justice sotomayor asks about how my children are doing and she knows. When her mother was dying, we all knew. We share light things like what shows we are watching on tv, more serious things happening in our family. I really think it is the time spent together that is very important. There are other things we do for one another. The former most junior justice does it for the new justice. You find out the persons favorite food and learn something about them to welcome them into what we call our court family. I will tell the story, the night of my confirmation vote, i was at the white house and my cell phone rang, the very first call i got from the court was Justice Sotomayor calling to gradually me and welcomed me to the court. When i got to the court on the first day, it had been a difficult few weeks, there were huge life changes and i wasnt sure how i would be received. Justice sotomayor showed up in my office with halloween candy for my kids. Small gestures of kindness and concern. Many of my colleagues, the first year i was on the court, i was living here and commuting back home when i could and many colleagues had me over for meals to make sure i wasnt by myself in the evening and just to get to know me. I think the time spent together goes a long way toward knowing one another as people and i think collegiality isnt going to make you change your principles, as Justice Sotomayor said. There is a way to have a disagreement and mean each other where it is possible to meet. Justice sotomayor if i might share with the audience observation that Justice Souter gave me, he was my predecessor, i took his seat. He welcomed me and said sonya, i know life on the court became easier for me when i had an epiphany one day. And that was, i get very upset and angry as a dissenter because i couldnt convince my colleagues of my views. It drove me crazy. And he said at a certain point i realized, they are as passionate about the constitution, about our laws, about our democracy as i am. We are all people of good faith. We may disagree on what the best answer is for those values that it is never from bad faith. He said that eased his tension tremendously. I do think thats a problem i see in public exchanges i see on tv now. Theres too much vilifying of people as human beings and not enough acceptance that we are fundamentally good people. You dont get involved in Public Service, you dont get involved in trying to help others unless you have a certain core values about love of family, love of friends, love of community. You have to believe in those things to become involved. If you believe in them and can accept those who differ from you in their thinking have those values as well, it is much easier to disagree agreeably. He was right. [applause] gov. Cox the American People were aware of and greatly inspired by the friendship between justices scalia and ginsburg. It seemed like such an odd couple to so many people. Are there interactions on the court today like that relationship . Or was that sort of a one off . Justice sotomayor i dont think it is a one off, its just different now. Please remember that when Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg came to the court, neither of them well i think Justice Scalia may have had Young Children because he was there a long time. But ruth didnt, her children were grown. I know any has children at home. Justice jackson does. Some of my colleagues like Brett Kavanaugh does. Its harder for some of us to break away and take vacations together the way that those of four did, meaning Justice Scalia and his wife and Justice Ginsburg and her husband, but we still do things together. Justice kagan and Justice Gorsuch went to iceland . Justice barrett they went to iceland. Justice sotomayor to teach together. Neil gorsuch and i speak together as i do with Justice Barrett on civic issues with a variety of different audiences. Its not as if we are not spending time together. We do. We have dinners with virtually all my colleagues. I try to invite all of them to my home when they join the court, thats part of my way of welcoming them up your Justice Barrett welcoming them. Justice barrett Justice Sotomayor invited us and it was right around my daughters 18th birthday, and she knew that and had a gift and a birthday card waiting for my daughter. Again, it is small gestures and thoughtfulness. I think thats probably one of the things that was striking to people, not just that Justice Scalia Justice Ginsburg spent a lot of time together, i think it was probably more surprising later in their lives, closer to the time of Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalias death, people found it remarkable because by that time our culture had gotten to a place where those kind of friendships were more remarkable. I think they shouldnt be remarkable. Gov. Cox have either of you gone hunting with the Justice Kagan . [laughter] Justice Barrett no, i have not. [laughter] Justice Sotomayor i am a new yorker. So is she, but she has lost it. [laughter] she really has. There is no way you will get me up at the crack of dawn to sit in the woods. [laughter] gov. Cox maybe the audience is not aware of how Justice Kagan became a hunter. Justice barrett she assured, i cant remember what senator it was during her confirmation hearing, that she would learn to shoot a gun. She kept that pledge, and she had known Justice Scalia before she joined the court, because of her services at harvard. She said lets go hunting, you have to teach me how to shoot a gun. She found she enjoyed it and they did several hunting trips together. I have not enjoyed that experience yet. [laughter] golfing may have replaced hunting as her sport of choice. Gov. Cox a litter safer than the hunting a little safer than the hunting. In other places you have rightly reminded us that civic participation is about much more than just politics. We are with politicians here, but what can leaders and politicians do to improve our communities beyond electoral politics . Justice sotomayor i know im speaking to leaders but i dont want to speak just to them, if you dont mind. I firmly believe that Civic Responsibility is not just Public Service, its not elected politics. It is every member of a Community Feeling a responsibility to ensure that they are taking an active role in helping some part of society. You cant define what a problem is because there are so many. Every one of them deserves attention. You can decide that the really big problems like the environment are your thing. Or you can decide that something as little as improving the quality of your local school board is important. But you have to, as a citizen, feel a responsibility to be part of the community that does something to change that community for the better. For me, that feeling gets translated by people into elected politics, and rightly so. Politicians are people who speak to the electorate and say i see these problems and i want to help you solve them. Thats why elected leaders are so important. You are the example to everyone, including schoolkids, most importantly schoolkids, about the value of Public Service. If you are not conducting yourself in ways others feel they want to emulate, you are discouraging not just citizens from participating in the big issues, you are discouraging them from participating in all issues that help the community. For me, as leaders, if you want to think about yourselves, you should think about yourselves as the example you want others to follow. You have to show them in word and deed how important it is to participate and how important it is to participate in a way that stimulates them to believe that doing good is actually a good thing. [applause] gov. Cox Justice Sotomayor has got us focused on the rising generation. Each of you gets to hire fabulous young graduates of law school, the best and brightest of american law schools come to work for you. If i remember, i think you still do some teaching . Justice barrett i do. Gov. Cox do you have views about whether american Higher Education is teaching young people the civic virtues weve been talking about . Is it meeting the task or could it do better . What advice do you have . Justice barrett american Higher Education is not monolithic, we have so many different institutes of Higher Education and im sure some do better jobs than others and cultivating that. I know from my own law students, its very important to me in the classroom and always has been, to cultivate the kind of discourse we are talking about where people feel free to express views others dont share. What i always say in the classroom is you should feel free to express your views and that Everyone Needs to assume from everyone else the good faith that Justice Sotomayor was talking about. I teach constitutional law so some constant some conversations can be hard. Like the decisions you have to make in your states. You have to assume faith of someone else. I have found in really every aspect of life, personal and professional, that begin to fester if i stand back and assume the person is acting in good faith and not trying to belittle, it helps conversations go smoother. My law students, i hear about how their education has fostered that, more difficult for some than others. But i think what we do well is encouraging that have those kinds of encouraging them to have those kind of relationships with each other. On the court, we go out to lunch every term with the otherss law clerks. That is really great because we get to talk across different chambers, i get to meet all of these bright young minds that have come to work at the court. I always tell them, i discourage remote work especially at the start of their career for that very reason, getting to know people and getting to be in person, which i think is necessary to cultivate the kind of discourse we are talking about. When you are not in the flesh, going back to we are in the Conference Room in its just the nine of us. When you are in the flesh and having Difficult Conversations, you cant just get up in storm away from the computer screen. You give one another the benefit of the doubt, you give one another, you assume the best, as my mother used to say to me and now i say to my kids, you assume the best about the other person and it makes Difficult Conversations easier to have. Theres been a lot of conversation about free speech on College Campuses recently and i hope those continue because we are a Pluralistic Society and we may have red states and blue states but above all we are the United States. Its a Pluralistic Society, thats what the First Amendment protects. If we cant survive by tolerating differences and learning to compromise and allow one another to express other views, we will think and we wont we will sink and will be able to get anything done as a country. Gov. Cox thank you. [applause] staying with you for a second, you have responded to critics of the court by challenging them to read the courts opinions. Thats what you said, i believe. You criticize the court, you think we are just artisan hacks, i believe is the phrase you partisan hacks, i believe is the phrase you used, read the opinions good what did you mean about that . Justice barrett i think Justice Warren said this as well. I think it is because things at the court or the way we make decisions, the nature of our business is different. We are trying to say what the law means, we are not the policy, that is your job. We dont speak we speak in these kinds of settings that we dont have press conferences. Really the product of our work is the opinion. I dont go out and talk to the press or people in between oral argument and the issuance of an opinion about what i think should happen in the case. Its very different than the political process in that respect. I think if you want to note what if you want to know what the courts reasoning is, you have to read the opinion. Justice sotomayor and i have been on opposite sides of difficult issues. Last year was the student loan case. There was a vigorous debate in the country about the student loan forgiveness program, but the opinion did not narrow that debate. It wasnt about whether it was a good thing or bad thing, it was about the scope of the statute. I think there are many reasons to criticize the courts work on any number of cases, and Justice Kagan and the chief justice in that case had an impressive backandforth with both making excellent arguments. But you cant know if you agree or disagree with what the court did because is not based just on the policy bottom line, without seeing the reason for why the court reached the decision it did. I tell my law clerks and i used to tell my students, i wanted them by the end of the semester to be able to identify several decisions that they liked the result but disagreed with the reasoning and vice versa. Justice scalia used to say and i agree, if you find yourself liking the result of every decision you make, you are in the wrong job and not doing the right thing. You should sometimes be reaching result you dont like because its not your job to be deciding cases the way you would like them to be seen, and its only in reading opinions you can see the rationale. Justice sotomayor how many in the audience have read a Supreme Court opinion from cover to cover . Look behind you. There are more lawyers in this room. [laughter] i asked audiences this question all the time and in general audiences without lawyers, hardly a hand goes up. Gov. Cox you have to admit you all right a lot of pages. [laughter] [applause] Justice Sotomayor i will speak for myself and my colleague to me and i think most of my colleagues, most of it is written pretty clearly. [laughter] gov. Cox its great writing, theres just so much of it. I am just kidding. Ive been inspired by the comment that you made, i now have a rule with my students that they cannot talk to me about dobbs or oberg or felt. Unless they sign an affidavit i am kidding about this part that they have read the entire opinion twice. When they have done that, they can come talk to me. The point is, and i believe this, if you take the time to read the opinions, you may disagree with it but what you will see is nine people struggling with law, not with policy. They are trying to figure out what the constitution means, what the statute and regulation means. They are not saying i am for this outcome or this outcome. If i can ask you, famously a couple years ago, the chief justice rejected the idea the judges were beholden to the president who appointed them. He said we do not have obama judges or trump judges, bush judges or clinton judges, what we have is an export in your group of dedicated Extraordinary Group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. Justice breyer in the most recent book, argues they are not partisans and rogues, they dont reflect partisanship, but grappling with the law. Has that been your experience . Justice sotomayor pretty much. I think the worst thing to happen to the judiciary is Political Parties could at a certain point parties. At a certain point Political Parties decided to take conversations happening between judges and academics about how best to approach the constitution and statutes, and they began to adopt our buzzwords as buzzwords. Some of the discussions we were having like on plaintext and things like that. Instead of discussing those terms with respect to approaches that made sense with all of the nuances those approaches contained, they just began to label people according to the buzzwords. That doesnt do justice to the fact that, Justice Breyer was discussing Justice Barrett was discussing cases where we disagree, and there are also cases where we agree. And there are many. Not just between us, me and all of them. We have dissented together on a number of cases. The nuances of how we talk about legal theories is missing from the words that politicians have given to judges. I think that is what Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer are talking about. We dont come into this work as a republican or democrat. We dont even come to it as an originalist or plaintext. Speaking for you. You come into it and i do as well as a judge who believes that our job is to find the best answer to the legal questions the court is presented with. I think that is sacred to almost all of us. Remember, painfully for us, president s dont last that long. [laughter] for us to be beholden is crazy. Seriously, there is built into the system a protection which is lifetime appointment that should give us the freedom to grow as we grow in the job as well. Justice barrett and not just beholden to a president but a Political Party as well. We have a luxury that many of you in this room dont. It does insulate us from politics. Its not that we are not obama or trump judges, we are not credit or not democrat or republican judges. Im glad you brought that up that i should be talking about when we agree, which is more often than not, i wish i had the statistics. There was a talk i gave a few months ago, look at the statistics from last term, and you hear so much about our deeply divided court, but when you look at the docket from last year, i think that might have been true in five cases or so. The vast number of cases are unanimous or almost unanimous, and the next segment you have all different lineups, you dont have the same sometimes it is 63 in different ways. My first case was 63, and the six was the six men. I think the attention gets put on a few. Its important to keep in mind that there are many more times the court is in agreement. Gov. Cox the clock tell us we have only two minutes. I want to give each of you a minute for a final statement to this audience about the role of the court and how the courts can provide a role model for the country in this politically toxic environment. We will let the senior justice go first. Justice sotomayor we are we are given the opportunity to put in writing what convinces us of something. And we also have the ability to share that with each other before its published. And without question, because of that practice, both opinions, the majority opinions and the dissenting opinions, always get better. Because of the majority because the majority tightens up its thinking. And the dissenters swim down to target. You dont have as Public Officials often that opportunity you also have to deal with the fact, like we do in part, that the public has a very short attention span. But i dont think that that should stop you from ever thinking about the fact that explanation and your conduct in listening and in explaining yourselves and answering why the other side has not convinced you in a respectful way, those processes of the court can be emulated by others. Gov. Cox ms. Barrett . Justice barrett i think initiatives like this are wonderful. I think you can do so much by being see publicly with people who disagree with you. Republicans and democrats together. Friendships across the aisle. Speaking in reasonabled in reasoned and civilized way. Those are things people do in their regular live, we do on the court, that you cando. Thats an example we can set for the younger people in this country. Thank you very much for having us today. [applause] thank you so much to our estreamed Supreme Court justices, to judge griffith, what an incredible presentation. I hope you all enjoyed that as much as i did. Before you leave, just a couple of announcements we need to make. They asked us to hold here for a minute so the justices can leave. Well ask you to stay for just a moment. I vals to give a very important update if not youre going to be very confused in just a moment because unfortunately there is a required mandatory test of the fire alarm system that is going to happen in this building in about 15 minutes. All right . So i dont want you to panic and run outside onto the street. This is a planned fire test of the system. It shouldnt last very lock. We dont want you to be concerned when that goes off in 15 minutes. So for the people who left a little early, if you see them panicking, tell them its ok, they dont have to leave quite yet. With that, i think weve given them enough time. Thank you all so much. Were see some of you a little late around the rest of you tomorrow morning. Thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its ption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] all this week weve bee bringing you washington journals interviews with authors. Today ty discuss their book a few days full of trouble at 6 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Or online at cspan. Org. Today, watch cspans 2024 campaign trail. A weekly roundup of cspans Campaign Coverage providing a onestop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters along with firsthand accounts from political reporters, updated poll nurnlings fundraising data and campaign adds. Watch cspans 2024 campaign trail. Today at 7 00 eastern on cspan. Online at cspan. Org. Or download as a podcast on cspan now our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. Cspan, your unfiltered view of politics. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government. Were funded by these Television Companies and more including cox. Koolende v rirvetion es syndrome is extremely rare. Hi. But good friends dont have to be. This is joe. When youre connected, youre not alone. Cox supports cspan as a Public Service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. On saturday, live coverage of the principles first summit focused on advancing center right politics, featuring speakers critical of former President Donald Trump and his 2024 candidacy. Speakers include former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele and bushera attorney general alberto gonzales. Watch live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan, cspan now, our free mobile video app or online at cspan. Org. Laura trump is the daughterinlaw of 2024 president ial candidate and former President Donald Trump she campaigned on his behalf at their South Carolina headquarters. She was joined by g. O. P. Representative nancy mace who represents South Carolinas first district. Washington jour continues. Host we are joined now by gov. Spencer cox a republican from utah in the chair of the Governors Association. Welcome to the program. You are here in washington for the Governors Association winter meeting. Can you remind us of what the association is in the purpose of these meetings . Guest the National Governors association is an association for all of the nations governors and we get together several times a year to talk about the issues important to every state. We still believe the states of the laboratories of democracy. We believe that is where true policymaking is happening and so this is a cool opportunity for republicans and democrats, its a bipartisan association. Im the chairman this year. It is one of those rare institution that still exist in the United States where we actually get along pretty well and Work Together. Host lets talk about getting along better. You have an initiative called disagree better. Can you tell us what that means . Guest i was looking at reducing the cost of health care and Energy Policy and it became very clear, you cant solve the problems facing our country if we all hate each other and sadly, the experts will tell you we have become much more polarized over the past 20 years. Our inability to even have debate in discussions never mind find solutions. The idea behind disagree better is that we can and should disagree. It is a Civility Initiative is about staying true to our values in a way that does not demonize the other side which allows us to have a productive discussion. Im grateful to have governors jump in with both feet. They have to film the ad with someone from the other side of the aisle and they talk about how they can still be friends and have those disagreements and is not about policy disagreements with the dinner table. 30 of americans have lost relationships because of politics. Thats new and is very destructive. Host if you would like to join the conversation you can do so by party for democrats 202 7488000, for republicans 202 7488001, for independents 202 7488002. Host how did we get here you said people of lost family ties over politics and people are disagreeing in a way thats not so nice. How did we get to this point . Caller theres been no lot of research on how we got here. About 20 years ago a famous book was written called bowling alone. These institutions and Community Events had started to disappear in this country and religious attendance is down. Those places where people would gather and have friends whether it is bowling leagues, civic institutions, religion. People are lonely and they have fewer friends than they have had in the past and at the same time we are wired for connection. You have the internet and social media. We are losing our true friends but finding fake connections online. We are looking for our tribes and we find tribes and politics. Politics has become religion for people and infiltrated religion so we have elevated our identity as political animals. When i was growing up i had no idea who the republicans or democrats were in my town. We knew each other as americans first. We were dads, moms hers. Republicans and democrats were down the list. And now its the number one way we identify each other and thats incredibly divisive. We were not meant to be political animals and its driving a wedge between us. Host lets talk about the meeting going on today and tomorrow. What are your top policy areas and concerns . Guest we will be talking about disagreeing better and we are very fortunate we have two Supreme Court justices. Sotomayor and barrett will be on stage. They will talk about that institution and how they disagree with each other and are still friends. Were talking about the rising cost of housing. That will be a top priority in discussions around things like ai were going to leave this to go back to the National Governors association for a press conference. I do know thats one of the issues im sure well be talking about more. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you all