Of a course, we must cooperate w to challenge the news which is a threat for all of us. With having a fair state between us and a state that threatens everything, we cannot live easily. It would be a nightmare havg a neighbor next to you and you dont feel secure. Neither baghdad was secure. We can cooperate. We can cooperate they must be equal. How are we going to get this relationship . We must sit down and negotiate. Thats why we are talking about two parts. Part building baghdad and part we are building ourselves. We can negotiate with baghdad about the future and the rest of the country and the rest of iraq andth about kurdistan. If we can cooperate with each other, that would be good. If not, that means we can choose two different path. We will not be get in baghdad. So the way they have been treating us as if we were guests in baghdad, its over. We ask for more political power in the kurdistan region. This is the least people can accept from us. Thank you. Michael gordon. Up here. I would like to ask you to clarify the point you just made and followup on the previous question. When you say that if kurdistan is part of a new iraq, acknowledges the new facts on the ground, are the new geographic facts on the ground negotiable. In the disputed territories that they have been to forever to be part of kurdistan not on the negotiating table with the iraqi partners and that has to be recognized if you are to remain part of iraq or negotiate territory building facts on that territory. You made the point there needs to be a new Prime Minister. The process is to pick a new Prime Minister. You mean to say you are explicitly ruling out Nouri Almaliki as a potential for a third term. This has been covered by article 140 from the constitution of iraq. And the same article is about implementation of the process of a Legal Process in this area is the duty of iraqi government. Iraq government didnt do that. They didnt implement that article. We can implement that article. How are we going to implement that article now that territory is under the power. So they can decide their future on referendum. And i think my president made it clear, when we have a referendum in kurdistan, its about something else. The disputed territory which has been covered by the constitution, we can have a referendum. The people will decide. Its not about negotiation with baghdad. Its about the roles and the desire of the people in there. And through referendum, the future of these areas will be decided. This is not only we. I mean, the Prime Minister if i wasnt Nouri Almaliki deny, i will go to the parliament. I will say im sorry. I couldnt manage this country, i will leave. He doesnt recognize that. He doesnt recognize that he was a failing manager. So the sunnies, they dont want Nouri Almaliki. But the main two Political Parties among the she shiites, they dont want Nouri Almaliki. I think hes finished. We must wait for another one to take in charge. Barbara, up here in the middle and then dennis in the dark. Thanks. Good to see you both back here again. I believe president barzani say there will be a referendum on independence. Can you confirmay that . He said that referendum. He didnt say why. He didnt say about what. He didnt say which question. Tomorrow, hes going to be in parliament to discuss these matters. Us okay. The other [laughter] lets face it, youve been talking about independence for a very, very long time. Certainly as long as ive known both of you gentlemen. Are you getting a more receptive response from the Obama Administration for the idea of not just more autonomy, but independence, or are they telling you you can have more autonomy, you can sell your oil, we dont want to break away entirely from iraq. Is that the same view that one hears from the turks and iranians. They have considerable kurdish population. Many people can accept more sovereignty, but not independence. Im asking you. Can you have de facto independence without splitting from iraq and is the u. S. Government okay with that . Well, the need to right to serve of independence is a given right. The reality on the ground the International Circumstances and the Regional Power has to be blamed. We were divided against the will of four people to be minorities in four countries. We have accepted that. But we want to live in peace and in partnership. Thathi was objective. That was our problem. De facto independence, we had it from 1991 to 2003. When we had saddam hussein. The kurds were different than the ones that were in the rest of iraq. In 2003, there was a way to secure a Better Future, we believed in that. We were in the front to support the United States liberationle iraq. We are thankful and grateful. We said that United States provided it for all of iraq to build a democracy. We in kurdistan benefit from that. Unfortunatelily unfortunately, the rest did not. What we here from france and italy and the neighboring countries that is more and more understanding of this kurdish position. Its not like the path to be never. Theres more understanding to that. The kurdish leadership does not rush into a conclusion and we do not jump over the situation. We wantr to secure a Better Future for the people of kurdistan and we will do it peacefully through understanding and negotiations. We do understand that without the support of the neighboring countries or at least some of them or without the support of the main powers in the world, the United States included, we havent survived. At the end of the day, even if we go down road of independence, we want international commission. We do not want our people to suffer more. Thats why we are patient. We are trying tour build the momentum. We are trying to build the support. We want to show our friends that we have done everything in order to help the process in iraq. But when it fails, it will not be the kurds to be blamed and the kurds should not be object object obliged to stay as part of that country. We will stay as neighbors to iraq. We want a better understanding with the future neighbor as well. I want to followup on what barbara is asking and be a little bit precise. Up until now when i think you are talking to the administration, the administration is cool to the idea of selling your oil, obviously, and also emphasizing the importance of maintaining the Central Government and its power, are you hearing a different message this time now that you are here . Are you seeing an administration that is more receptive to the two paths you set out . And do you have within iraq, do you see alternative candidates for Prime Minister who might lookve at the kurds as being something other than a guest when they come to baghdad . Yeah . Im not here to speak on behalf of the american but secretary of the state was there a week ago. Ten days ago. Was in baghdad. And Everybody Knows that there is a new reality in iraq. Everybody. So if the new policy will not reflect the new reality, that means i dont know which kind of policy will do that. There is a movement on there isem action to understand the nw reality. In our discussion here in washington, we feel that. We feel they are ready to listen and to understand whats going on exactly and to listen to our opinion about not only whats going on now, but what it must the country. We are still in discussion with them. But we have a feeling that the upsetting here is different understanding here is different. Comparing the various visits that we had to washington in the past, now it is different. This is p different. Its up to them to announce that. And i think within a short time, there must be, lets say, various pieces of policy as far as dealing with baghdad and dealing with it and also as far as dealing with this new islamic state. This the whole area has been changed. And it will come to newsom new some in the wrong direction. The other one, there could be people dealing with this crisis. At the same time, this crisis is offering opportunities. Opportunities which is not against the law. Whicthh is not against the iraqi constitution. And also not against the right of the kurds. This new opportunity for the kurds is important and we are trying to deal with that and try to convince others including the United States that there must be a new policy. And one door policy depending on iraq on the iraq policy. Dealing only with baghdad, i think, this is not the right policy. There is baghdad, there is and youve got another state. Dealing with baghdad is not different. And all of us, we must Work Together to deal with the new state which is that state. I believe there have been recognition. A recognition of this tragic past. A recognition for the kurds to have a future. And there have been a change in the state. We have felt that from the United States, but other members of National Community. As for the second part of the question, indeed, not about the changing of personality and the faces. We have other problems in baghdad. Behind the closed door, they tell us, we have the right to budget. We have the right to we wanted that to be in the public in places like this to put pressure on baghdad. We would have like the National Community and the United Nations to put pressure on baghdad to provide the budget in that timely t manner and fashion. Therefore, there has been a change. Six months ago and a month ago, the reality on the ground after june 9th, impose itself and the interNational Community has to adapt to that change. Thanks, eric from the newspaper. Thank you. I do have the honor of meeting both. My question toy you and follows on the same theme. Lets face it. Iraq for all practical purposes theres a defective partition today. What kind of mechanism would you deploy to have the clean break and the soft landing so to speak . How could you alleviate whatever fears that the sunni state might have in terms of being oil poor in exchange for auditor auto or whatever . How do you see this happening . In the fact to partition, iraq is divided, yes, thats part of the reality that we are talking about. How are we going to deal with this de facto . Are we going to united again . Who is going to be united again . To unite iraq again, you must wage a war, fight against the the terrorist state and clean the area from terrorists. Thats a good target. Who is going to do that . We dont have iraqi army or we dont have an army which can fight now. As i said, the army in the majority of the army units has collapsed. Is United States ready to send troops to iraq again . I guess not. The answer is no. Is turkey ready to attack this neighboring state, i guess not. As we know, turkey supported the opposition in syria in the last few years. Turkish government didnt send an army to syria. I dont think think turkish army is coming to iraq. Is ready to do that, the american plus the european . I dont think so. What about the iranians . Are they ready to send their army to sunni areas to liberate . I dont think so. I think they are ready to defend background. But further than that, i dont think we are able to do that. We the kurds can we do that . We can defend our area. We cannot go deep in arab areas and fight the terrorists there. It will be difficult for us. This is the reality. The main question for many is how durable this state, i mean, some states will be. Who is going to fight it. If we are not going to fight this state, all of us together, then it will be stronger and it will reach many other places. Be a reinstate to me other states. So thats why we are saying that there is a new reality and it needs a new policy and needs a new coordination on various fields, security, military, economic and political. As far as iraq, we must deal with that reality until we finish this job. We cannot talk about a united iraq to be honest. We cannot talk about a Good Relationship between them and baghdad. Im talking about equal relationship between them and baghdad. It isnt baghdads relationship to have Good Relationship interest to have Good Relationship. We can invest this relationship with outside world so we can protect ourselves and protect the area of baghdad. And then to build our forces so that we can liberate the other. Otherwise, this new state will stay there as a neighbor and iraq will be divided. Not because of the constitution or on the basis not on the basis of agreement, but on the basis of security lines. And then could we do it . I have ruben and up here. Over there. Trudy from the philadelphia inquirer. Talking about who is going to fight this new state, firstly, could you tell us whether you think it is possible to turn sunni tribes against isis . And if so, would that be enough to make the difference . Where do they fit in this mix . Is there an inner iraqi dynamic here . Do you want the u. S. To give you, the kurds, weapons to fight. And lastly, iran. This is a threat to iran. Do you believe at this point that iran wants a new structure inside iraq or is he still clinging to the current structure and to Nouri Almaliki . Good question. Many questions in one. Just like iraq. Many countries in one. [laughter] these awakings movement or tribes which start with i mean, it has been established in 2006 and 2007. You see, as far as these tribes, many of them now either they were frightened and they joined isis or supporting isis. Or they leave the area and people as i mentioned in the beginning in my introduction, thousands and thousands of people are leaving the area. So there must be pressure from all sides. Or from within or from above. From within, there must be resistance. Resistance of the terrorist groups. Who is goingst to resist . A working movement in the past with all respect for those people who are engaged, it was not that success story. We know what happened. We know why it happened. We know who paid. Who is going to play . Who is going to at that time, the army were there. On the tribal leader who was fighting, lets say, terrorist, they could, he could depend on american army. Now depending on who. As these tribes, they will be ablee to organize or reorganize themselves so they can create a kind of resistance in these areas. Who is going to support them . Supported means military, financially and leading them, means sometimes getting them as refugee in your area. Who is going to do that . I dont see any i mean many t tribes. Arab tribes. And not only that, to be honest now, most of them who are representing the community in the parliament. Par we are in iman and they fly to baghdad. They cannot go back to their own area. A resistance from within, that is difficult. But that doesnt mean within this new state there are not people who are not against that. But they dont have power. If we analyze the political organizations which without working with isis, we see all they have a baghdad. We are talking about al qaeda which is old al qaeda. They are weaker than isis. We are talking about isis. We are talking about agreements which are mixed. They are more close to islamic. We are talking about islamic army. Wewe are talking about revolution and we are talking about these are the organizations which are actively syria. But gradually from 9th of june until now, the information that we receive is that people are almost controlling the field. They are stronger because they have weapons in their hand. They have the organizations. Their ideology is more clear than others. They have got money. They have got plenty and they have leadership. Gradually that is going to be the biggest organization and the others may follow. So from within, it will be difficult to destroy the state from within. If there will be pressure from outside, there is a possibility that some of these organizations which i mentioned, they will be in conflict with isis. And they will be fight among themselves. This all has to do with big if. If there will be pressure from all side, if there will be a army from all side and strong support fromtr all side. It is difficult. Not easy. U. S. Weapons, i dont know what you are talking. We dont know about that. When we are talking about fighting, we need the weapons. But the u. S. Weapons is now in the hands of the terrorist, unfortunately. Instead of being in the hands of the friends. All of us. Not only the people here. We too, we must rethink about these things. Giving weapons to everybody and then at the end, end up with a terrorist, this is disaster. You see if the terrorist group that were there as they were before 9 june, it was easier to fight them. After 9 june, they became a large, large army with the most sophisticated weapons that they have. What do you want from me . No. No. Iran is a state. We are not talking about individual. Iran as a state has interested. And iran is a neighboring country. We want to have Good Relationship with iran. Iran has also interest in iraq. I mean, many other countries also they have got their interests in iraq. I think the iranian interests is also to fight those terrorist groups. This is also a threat. Not only a threat for their national security. Its an ideological threat. They are depending on different theory and different interpretation. So if its a threat for us and threat for baghdad, threat for turkey and iran. Thats why i think at the end, if we can Work Together, all of us, plus support and help from United States, then we can defeat this new phenomenon which is a nightmare for all of us. First that has to be progress on the t political, you know, fr the sunnies. There is hope for them, they have a Better Future, they will not doau it. Its part of the power struggle. The kurds would like to have weapons. We do not have intentions to go on the offensive. Fighting outside of kurdistan area, this is not something welcome. Its not our responsibility. Its the responsibility of those who fail to protect them. Those who got the support locally allen and internationally. In if the United States does not step in, then the door would be open for the neighbors to step in and interfere. Theres a lot of contradiction there. We have a win win situation for those who have interest in this or end up in the zero some gain. That would not be the interest of the secretary. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] teresa writes. Souls to the highest bidder. They have lost their credibility and true purpose. From richard, my opinion of the court is higher than my opinion of the administration. Higher than the opinion of the house and senate. They are the last object stackable to the dictator. There was protests outside of abortion clinics whether they have companies have to give Birth Control coverage. From washington, d. C. Bar, this is an hour and a half. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you so much for coming. Im arthur spitzer. My day job as legal director of the American Civil Liberties union. Im wearing my hat as a volunteer for the d. C. Bar. We apologize for the lack of adequate food for what you all paid. More sandwiches are being made and they will be up shortly and nobody should hesitate to get up and get some food during the program. Nobody will mind. So welcome to the 26th annual the Supreme Court review from the press Gallery Program which is sponsors by the administration of justice and the courts lawyers. I have a few other preliminaries before we begin. Thanks to arnold and quarter in the spacious quarter room they are gathered. They are hosting us, i dont know, for the eighth or tenth year. Thanks to Marcia Tucker the pro bono coordinator for helping to host us. Thanks to cspan which is in the back for covering us again this year. You will be able to see the rebroadcast of the program at various odd hours for the next few days. It will be in the archive where you can watch it on your computer at your leisure. If you dont want the back of your head to be on national tv, you are welcome to slink to the side and avoid that. Thanks to to this man to being the coordinating and coordinating within c span. Hes not responsible for the food situation. 03. The section on the d. C. Bar tells me that i have to announce that this session is on the record, but you need the bars approval in advance if you are going to record it. Cspan has the bars approval. If you do not have the bars approval, you are not authorized to record. The section on courts lawyers and the administration of justice is one of more than 20 sexes sections of the d. C. s bar which they are done. That pertains to Court Administration and rules and the relationship between the bench and the bar and all aspects of the lawyers relationship to the profession including ethics, discipline and the mission standards. Improving access to justice for everyone in d. C. Ten other sections are cosponsors of todays program, they cover the range of Legal Practice and i would encourage all of you if you are members of the d. C. Bar and not yet members of the session, to become members. To many of you are future members of the d. C. Bar, when you get back, you should think about becoming active in one of the bars sections. Its a great way to get to know lawyers outside of your own firm and practice and to learn about the interesting areas of the law and to make a difference in the the profession. If you are not a member of the American Civil Liberties union, i have membership forms in my briefcase which i would be happy to give to you after the program. We have a panelists who are covering the Supreme Court by my count 107 years. I will introduce them briefly in order for how long they are covering the courts. Beginning with tony. Hes covering the courts since 1979. He joins the legal kinds in 2000 and continues with the merger with the National Law Journal in 2009. His undergraduate is from rutgers. David savage has been with the Los Angeles Times since 1989 and covering the court since 1986 and covers the court for the chicago tribune. Hes the author of turning rights. Hes authored the latest edition of the quarterly guide to the u. S. U. S. Supreme court. He has degrees from chapel hill and northwestern. Joan covers the court now for reuters. She has covered it since 1989 before joining reuters. She covers the court for u. S. A. Today and the walking post. Shes a regular panelist on the glenn iefel show. She specializes in supporting the Supreme Court through a biography. She has written sandra day of conner and the life and constitution of Supreme Court Justice Anthony scalea. Shes within weeks of finishing a new book, breaking in the rise of sonya otamorio. Robert bond next to joan joined the Washington Post in 1987 covering politics. Hes in charge of domestic issues. National political. And the papers metropolitan editor. He began to cover the Supreme Court in 2006. He had been planning to go to law school and changed his mind after he took a course at the university of florida. His buy og biography says that d