[applause] ladies and gentlemen, welcome to freedom day. I am Jeffrey Rosen, the president of this wonderful institution, the National Constitution center, which is the only institution in america that brings together citizens of different perspectives to unite around this beautiful document of human freedom and unites us, the u. S. Constitution. [applause] freedom day is the highlight of our constitutional programming here at the National Constitution center. It was launched on april 13, 2013 to further our Inspiring Mission and to encourage citizens around the country to celebrate, educate themselves and debate the meaning of freedom. What a way to acknowledge the visionary founder of freedom day than the women who conceived of this great celebration and made it a permanent part of the Constitution Center, and bert libby. The first todays brought together the top leaders in america to debate the meaning of issues ranging from the future of religious freedom to the future of free speech. We were gathered for an extremely meaningful event. This years freedom day launches a new twoyear initiative that is going to be a centerpiece of the National Constitution centers work. It is a National Commission holiday madisonian constitution for all. And this important commission will ask, what would James Madison and the framers of the u. S. Const edition make of our current presidency, congress, media and how could we resurrect madisonian values of limited government and constitutional today. This important commission is contained at a time when there is great debate in america and around the world about the tension between populism and constitutionalism. James madison and the other framers were not populous. They studied failed democracies like greece and rome. They recognize that unchecked democracy can lead to mob rule and therefore they designed a mixed government that would limit government in order to preserve freedom. In several, madison has two crucial distinction. In a republic as opposed to a democracy, and First Citizen should never be able to directly instruct their representatives. The idea of treating representatives would not have been a madisonian visit. The second thing madison said is we need to distinguish between referenda in deliberative decisionmaking. In republic as opposed to a democracy, the important decisions are delegated to the peoples representative rather than taken on one off votes. So Brexit Wouldve been anathema to madison in that idea madison in that idea that weve designed the system of separation of powers and checks and balances and individual rights in order to promote liberation was crucial to the project. We know around the world there are new forces threatening the idea. New social Media Technologies are making it possible for citizens to express themselves in quake mob like places rather than to proliferation. Places like polarization and the self sorting of citizens and to filter bubbles and echo chambers challenging their reasoned deliberation that madison thought was necessary in the future of freedom. Theyre for the Constitution Center has convened a summit of the greatest minds in america from all four branches of government, the three branches in order to address this really Important National question. Im so glad youve taken the time to come to philadelphia, those of you here and many more of you watching us on cspan and on the aclu live feeds. We are going to launch this commission and bring you some of the greatest thinkers in america for each of these branches to ask this important question. What would they think and how can we resurrect madisonian values . For the next two years we will fan across america, holding symposia and Panel Discussion and podcasts and commissioning white papers and we will issue reports in two years convene again in philadelphia and propose some solutions that we hope will cast light on one of the crucial questions of our time here in america and around the world. What is so exciting about this project in addition to its importance, civic importance and constitutional importance is the remarkable bipartisan support we receive. I am thrilled to report that our commission is cochaired by an Extraordinary Group that includes our congressional visiting scholars here at the National Constitution center. Senator mike lee and chris coons in the senate and represented just in the mosh and zoe lofgren in the house, a Wonderful Group united by their love in our commission is also cochaired by two remarkable women that im about to introduce you to when we will have a conversation and they are odious, the president of the Federalist Society and the president of the American Constitution Society and libertarian lawyers organizations of america who have supported this amazing project. Its important, exciting and will have an incredible series of conversations. Before beginning, and i also want finally to think bill belanger who is here. He has generously provided seed money to start off this commission into promote reason deliberation, so committed to preserving madisonian values of compromise. Thank you very much to go unread. And now, lets begin, fasten your seatbelts and please join me in welcoming the cochaired the madisonian constitution draw commission, lee liberman otis. [applause] lee and caroline, it is such a thrill to have you both here in person. I need to tell you that the collaboration between the Federalist Society American Constitution Society under the Visionary Leadership of lee and caroline has been to show to everything. The centerpiece of our initial Work Together in the interactive constitution, which many of you have heard about. But if you havent on cspan and around the country, go to the napster and download the interactive constitution. Go to Constitution Center. Org and find this thrilling tool for caroline and lee and their great organizations have nominated to write about every cause of the constitution describing what they agree about and what they disagree about. In addition to be an extraordinary subsidy of tool where you can lose so much, models, and the civil dialogue necessary for the future of democracy and law professor, i am thrilled and enlightened every time i sign on to this amazing and free tool you can find in the app store and learned friend is great tool. First of all, please join me in thanking lee and caroline. [applause] im so glad we are up and running on the next phase of our collaboration together, which is the great madisonian commission. Only, why is it important for americans to study what madison thought about the constitution and why its important today. Well, i think basically the constitution is premised on the notion that we can form a government as hamilton said. Based on reason and reflection and passion, but also set up in the tuition to do that and adherence to institutions in central to win the experiment is going to be a success, which hamilton knows that the beginning is an open question. It is not clear that this is a possibility to create a government based on recent inflection as opposed to a tradition hierarchy or Something Else. Government based on reason reflection, caroline, and also doted to the madisonian constitution although they sometimes disagree about its meaning. Whitey think its important to study what madison thought today . First, i want to thank you for having this event here at the National Constitution center. It is so important that the programming you put on of the events and exhibits that people can see here. I would say that we at acs, American Constitutional Society and the Federalist Society, we dont agree on a lot in terms of the Const Duchenne, but we do stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to the important work of educating the public about the constitution, ensuring that people are reading, thinking about how it came to be and anticipating the challenges that we face in the future, how the constitution will protect us or where it needs to change. These dialogues are incredibly important for the resilience of our democracy. I would also say im the daughter of an historian, so i also think it is really important to understand our own history in order to understand the future we are walking into. What did your dad teach . American history. [laughter] lee, i think all of us were surprised and blown away by the runaway success of this interactive constitution which has gotten 10 million hits 10 million hits the ap exams have adopted the centerpiece of the new American History and government curriculum working with com academy to bring it to schools across america has just been thrilling. Really a model for so many collaboration including debate stand across the country from d. C. And new york to San Francisco and chicago were board organizations nominate and educate americans about the constitution. Why do you think this collaboration is important and what do you think it will achieve . Well, i should also add my thanks of course to caroline for their brilliant leadership that you have been providing to this and the tuition and your tireless and energetic effort to organize these debates. Thank you very much for that. I guess that i think that it turns out that, you know, it is possible one big question i think about the constitution is to what extent does it have been meaning . One way to figure that out is by hearing both sides about, you know, peoples different views about what it provides. And these debates are a wonderful opportunity for people to do that and i think everybody, you know, including the debaters learn things from them about the Const Duchenne and then it enables them to make judgments not on the basis of what they would like the Const Duchenne to mean, but on the basis of arguments about what it actually means. And i think that it wont work. The constitution wont work if people are just deciding, you know, i really like this result and therefore im going to conclude the constitution says that. I think having a civil vigorous energetic discussion about what it actually says is in a sense central to the whole enterprise of having constitutional government. That is important to the values of bringing people together in facetoface discussions to hear unfamiliar argument and the importance of separating your political term constitutional views. Caroline, what do you think the virtue of the debate in person and online has been and why are they important . The debates have been fabulous. I highly commend to you that they are online and you can watch them. They touched on the most important constitutional issues we face as a nation and at least then having the ability to hear both sides is extraordinarily important and challenging ones own viewpoint, engaging with this profoundly important document. We had some really interesting ones. I think back to the last one which dealt with the possibility for Supreme Court justices. It was quite unique in that it actually had the debate was structured to have a one Federalist Society and one American Constitution Society on each side of the debate facing off against each other. The answer to these questions are the debate not always so clearcut about how it falls, liberal or conservative. Similarly, a lot of arguments about methodology to living constitutionalism and its also not so clearcut. You have some conservatives who believe in an evolving constitution. I think what they do is kind of a pin your notion of where people fall in a political spectrum in the process of looking at the constitution and thinking about how we should read this document. How do we extract meaning from it and how do we apply it as law . Seeing that apply to a current debate, something we are facing in the political system in their own personalized and thinking these things are connected, constitution has this deep and important substantive basis for so much of what we do and i think why the work of the National Constitution center so important in the Federalist Society along with the American Constitutional Society is to keep reminding people that the constitution actually has force and that it has meaning that is actually real as its applied to peoples lives. That is dutiful, too. The constitution is real and has meaning. This is meaningful, ladies and gentlemen. We are told with them in a society where conservatives and liberals can even have discussions and here you have the leaders of the two main lawyers organizations in america collaborating beautifully, and the constitution than really converging about the fact that the nations this collaboration is the most important thing we are doing and im so thrilled you are sharing this commission and people will do beautiful things in america. Please join me in thanking all the and caroline. [applause] it was beautiful. Rate, thank you so much. Okay, we are now going to jump right into her first panel involving the media. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an Extraordinary Group you are about to hear from. These leaders of journalism, well, we have with us Mark Thompson from the see how of the New York Times, gary rosen, editor of the saturday review of the wall street journal and author of a brilliant book about James Madison and data in a linzer come ahead of politics at nbc. Their participation started when mark came to the constitution senator center to discuss his brilliant new book called enough said, which is this discussion of how the degradation of broderick, which began during the classical period as a way of taming passions of the crowd may be inflaming it. I invited mark after this great discussion to join this commission. He agreed, to join this panel and youll hear from the top media leaders with one of the most urgent questions of our time, which is how can we preserve madisonian values of public reason in an era where they seem to be under siege. Please join me in welcoming Mark Thompson comment gary rosen and linzer. [applause] mark, you start this off with your beautiful book and just send me the epilogue which you have drafted for the new edition, which really takes on the question of populism versus the rule of law posts brexit imposed 2016 election. Theres so much to say about it, but if you could distill for the audience your amazing argument about how these Popular Forces receive not only in america, but around the world are threatening values and why. The first thing is in no way my day job of being a chief executive in the New York Times on the subject of a project i began four years ago, sort of when double donald trump, the two things kind of come together. Im now kind of living in the book. To say the obvious, we are seeing now to the important pillars of broader public life and support democracy, the media and the judicial system in both britain and america, particularly those coming under attack with populace regard, both Mainstream Media and to some extent the Legal Systems in our country as being problematic to believe and to the establishment and the phrase enemies of the people used by President Trump at the New York Times and other leaders in this country with the phrase enemies of the people used by the u. K. Daily mail to describe judges who suggest the parliament to decide whether or not the formal article, which begins the process of the u. K. Leaving the european union, whether that should be triggered and discussed in parliament. The reaction was the judges of the enemies of the people. So, there is more sharp and its a now attack on some of the structures in both of our countries, but certainly it is my understanding, im sure the weakest on the stage of James Madison central to madisons conception of how you think about government, which is absolutely other people, but not pray to sudden and extreme gestures by that people. Some of these structures are now it seems to me under attack. Crystallizes it perfectly. An elitist institution like the times and judiciary, enemy of the people and the sudden passions were people should be with the madisonian ideal. Gary rosen, youre a scholar of madison and have written a book about this thought. What is your response to marks framing between populism and constitutionalism and what would madison make of our media today . To stipulate from the start, madison would look at our media world today and consider it an absolute nightmare for constitutional democracy because madisons whole political project was to figure out ways to tame them direct passion, extreme expressions of interest. The federalist papers are all about the institutions that are meant to channel and refine all of these wild ideas and notions floating around in political life. I think of madison were to see your world today, we have all of these Incredible Technologies in which all of us use and appreciate, but which are so brilliant that magnifying and transmitting ideology, impassioned points of view, rightly enough people in ways that have nothing to do with deliberation and analysis of public end. They really are what we have come in these incredible tools for generating what madison famously called faction of the selfinterested party of one sort or another, whether motivated by passion or of any interest that dont have a broader idea with the couples good in mind. So you wouldnt like it. But at the same time, this is important as well. He would see our institution, our media, especially our Quality Press as an important check on the excesses in our government. He himself of course would very much participate in his own day. As fabulous we sometimes forget what is not written as a philosophical book, but as a series of newspaper pieces. Madison himself in the early days of her public, specially when the Federalist Party was very much in his mind the mind of jefferson gathering power in this disturbing way he took to the press again to sort of rally people on the constitution. So i think he would be what a lot of the press is doing today is serving an important constitutional function. Apart from different policy debates, do we think immigration should be handled this way or that way. What do we think about taxes . I have been impressed over the past several by what the better segments of the press are doing to sort of highlight what our system of government is about. What it means to have courts that have a Certain Authority and mandate, what the responsibilities of the legislature are, what the president s authority is like, what are its bounds, how far does the president of authority, whether its limits . I think that has been very constructive role and the question is how we might do more of that to make the prius and even more substantive part in a way of this wider script im serving government. That leads crucially to msnbcs ratings than they are doing such important journalism before and after the latest election. And yet as you listen to gary and mark, are you in cable news subject to some of these pressers that they are lamenting to get the biggest ratings among your base and could you imagine an msnbc audience making it through i have the whole book here, but to answer his own question. Are you concerned that the cost of these high ratings in the populace forces are lamenting and what can we do about it. I am kind of amazed a little bit at the ratings and the viewership and the audience. After an election and engaged in these actions. The news cycle kind of return that is not wholly focused on politics. The election for a long time felt like it didnt end. I think just because of the circumstances of the results come in the split between the Electoral College and the popular vote, 54 of people who voted after they did not vote for the president , they voted for someone else. In fact, the last time i was in this room, msnbc hosted a town hall with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in april rate ahead of the pennsylvania primary. So i think the audience and when i say the audience, i really mean voters. I think they are Truly Engaged and want to understand what is happening. They want to understand what this presidency is about. They want to understand what it means to have one party in power in washington. This is the first time the democrats than they really want to know and ill say this is truly in the politics were seen as msnbc. They love great reporting. They want great journalism in great reporting and they dont want punditry were screaming, which is why i think actually for a place like msnbc with the kind of folks they have on primetime hours that is what they are looking for. I think its been a surprise to see people more interested than ever before. Is a heartening and optimistic observation in our experience on a smaller scale with constitutions that people are hungry and will listen to podcasts about technical issues with such loyal lifelong educators that people want to educate themselves. Mark, your last chapter and im not a terribly optimistic note. Do you think these populist phenomenon are not passing, and yet you identify some reforms the need to shore up institutions among us. Tell us more given the seriousness of these populist sources about what can be done. Some of the underlying drivers of populism, lots of jobs to automation, globalization, global migration are likely to become more intact in the next decade than in a sense we need democratic systems debating, discussing how to deal with these issues, which are going to come under more pressure than they are now. I think the worry is that as it were the level of disruption in 2016, 2017 is enough to produce the consequences weve seen, what will it be like in 2036, 2046 if we dont do something . If i just focus on one thing with the institutions, its really about litany. It seems to be right at the heart of the idea that the model of government as you are affect to that listening to and understanding the people. I think a stronger gesture by politicians and also perhaps by the media to listen intently to the public atlarge of public concerns and to express the media so people can say theyve been expressed, but also by expressing them to some next and to give them a challenge means they build up in a potentially negative way is what you have to do. I am very struck by the role of emotion. And the role that empathy and emotion plays in the way we persuade each other through the one thing i would say is if you cant find a way of understanding and responding to emotion, almost any system of democratic government will eventually come under acupressure. It seems to me that we integrator responsiveness inherent to tuition. And away, once again, the integrating concerns of recent evidence and argument with enough empathy that we bring enough of the people along with us. Populism is a warning sign to a leads and talking about the art of listening. I think i would say about our institutions we are capturing an ability. Listening doesnt mean compromising than trying to understand the whole range of his and making in a sense, peoples emotional responses to events part of the way we develop policy in the way we think about how we cover the world, in a way in which we could argue institutions that are less good at doing. Fascinating. Mark faces a hard madisonian question. How can institutions and in particular the media listen to and reflect popular concerns and emotion without doing them in a demagogic way . There is a wonderful book that suggested at the end of his life , madison is worried about to get technology and concerned abroad by price cutting up and running may not be able to unite the concerns of farmers in different classes in a way that will promote public reason and technologies are much more democratic. I think one way to think about it us proper and possible scale, real democratic politics, democratic deliberation of people feeling their institutions and some way reflect their wants and needs. We i think in the media could do a better job of reminding people of this complicated compound republic we have at Different Levels of government, different responsibilities ended away, moving back towards god in seeing those Different Levels of politics and governance as ways for people to express very positive things. We have right now a republican congress, a very controversial and popular republican president and we seen all these interesting reversals among people who are very much opposed to this administration on basic issues of local and especially state control, right . Its sort of flipped the usual dynamic. We have all these democrats and progressives saying we are tired of being bullied by washington. Both governing california as we want to or have sanctuary cities, have our own immigration policy. That is a very positive turn in our politics. My hope would be that wouldnt just be a way of saying we disagree with you on immigration and will fight you with any tool weve got. I would hope that it might lead to a discussion about hey, maybe one of the problems we have in this country as we tried the National Level to do everything comprehensively it leaves people in localities and states feeling disempowered, pushed around and may be ready for some kind of populist upheaval. I would love to see some sort of principled discussion about the proper boundaries. That is going to cut both ways for everyone. If you think the city should be able to shelter congeal undocumented and programs, the same localities might be able to have their own policies on bathrooms and questions having to do with with things that will not make liberals say, feel very comfortable. But we need to step back from the substantive dispute and talk about structure. They may agree. Our first solution of the evening, which is the states as laboratories of democracy. The great Louis Brandeis talked about smallscale communities. [inaudible] are you now or have you ever been a brandeis hand. Razor hand. An overwhelming minority. Read that riveting book and i will convert the rest of you. Brandeis idea is only smallscale communities and governments can people master necessary for personal and professional government could large skillet editions are too big for anyone to understand and therefore they take reckless rates and often fail. Our media environment is not conducive to smallscale brandeis and laboratories of democracy. We have a World Wide Web with worldwide speech and we have a need to get worldwide readings. So is there a danger although all three of you have been optimistic about how it might be on the small scale with responsible listening to the structure of the media environment to the two demagogues. Insurable late two demagogues. Thats a serious question. No, no, no, im a couple levels. One is im going to push back on one notion that i think people have to often, which is about ratings. We all work for businesses to the new york time is a business, wall street journal is a business. Nbc news is a business. Its pretty obvious when you watch it or read it, for people involved in institutional journalism and news, the number one thing we feel rewarded for. I dont feel a sense they should last play in that regard and certainly not now just if you like the public is so completely engaged and interested in rewarding institutions anonymously i worry a little bit in terms of seeing official offers coming in now, from the white house to be candid and sowing doubt in institutions. And they feel the public wants to safeguard this institutions and i think some of the wide open democratic sense that you do, you know, for being able to access information on the web or how that would play out for people, i still believe that they are looking much more to sort of a Bigger Picture cover things that they can trust. The ones that i just want to say on kerrys smart ideas and what the cost is of the localized sense of empowerment, some of these organizations and movements are looking for, even at the state level. There is no one sanctuary city in california, but in fact there are movements that are all over the country and find their homes everywhere and i think that is in one way or they would unify and look for joint dilutions that would take them across the board. Mark, please respond to everything youve heard as we begin to wrap up this discussion, some concrete proposal issues we can take on the road the next years and then reconvene. The one thing i want to say is the reporting is always local and specific. I think one of the great roles for a journalistic organization to play is to report what is happening in this country and the world can share that with everyone. I think it is one of the great strengths of Classic Media that you have disciplined professional Massive Research on what is happening in states and cities. One contribution you can make is in the sense that texture. If there is to be a Great National debate about what is best decided and at what level in the country, the media can play a role with five, a significant role, but that takes Something Else, which is we wont have time for now, how we try and work towards sustainable journalistic institutions at every level of this country. Although Warren Buffett recently only two newspapers, wall street journal and the New York Times have at the moment economic mobile is likely sustainable. This country depends, it seems to me, im having effective journalistic resource in every state and every city in under immense threat at the motion. Part of in a sense what a reviving, healthy, rejuvenating democratic system would look like has got to have regard to how we ensure that more often institutions can continue to report and share what is happening in every part of this country. Thats a Crucial Point that we need facts and journalistic institutions to play a crucial role. Gary, some have described this post back society in which citizens cant agree on what facts are. Thats anathema of the madisonian public reason you describe. We live in a society were to the degree we do, is that madisonian . I think i told you from the start this idea that madison had some robust notion of public reason i quarreled with a little bit. Hes very pessimistic about the possibility of popular reasoning, of people bringing some sort of dispassionate, disinterested point of view. A wonderful line in the federalist, where he says if every athenian citizen had been a socrates, everything in assembly would still have been a mob, right . And so, and he was really brutally realistic about this. For him, the question was in what way can citizens have very different interests and commitment and capacity participate meaningfully in government. Some of it has to do with the information available. I dont have any big solution that any of this has addressed. We are old media. Your newer media than we are. The basic media reality is defined by google and by facebook. Our ceo, counterpart Robert Thompson had this piece in our paper the other day that was really pretty tough on google and facebook instead this is a duopoly that is not only ruining their businesses, ruining Quality Press, but more than nhl really responsible for the prominent effective fake news because they throw things out indiscriminately and has a Business Model that depends on not discriminating on kinds of news. They feel this in some way. They started these different experiment of Fact Checking and whatnot, but in the end, this is my naive hope. They might realize that editors are important, and that there is responsibility on their part not just to cannibalize our work, but impose standards of their own. This is very much against what theyve been about, but i dont see how her limited role in the same politics as possible until something important changes in how these new ways of channeling and spreading information work. Another great take away, last word to you. We need to wrap up, but the question obvious is that all google and facebooks fault and what can we do to address this problem of fake news . [laughter] i obviously really second everything jerry said about this. I think in a lot of ways we are sort of in the Business Model, the ratings model is not being fake news for all of us right now. That is a big part of what we are doing in the Fact Checking in the record. I went back and a look at some of the president we about fake news where he uses that term, when does he use that term in Duke University did a great study looking back at every single time hes used it. Hes always used it. Theyre a couple exceptions, but nearly always uses that when talking about in the context of reporting on the russian story that a lot of us are following. It is not really with the times times to me, that is a big part of what were trying to push against is that notion that to me is that google or facebook or who is responsible for the fake news the president pushes fake news and he is an incredible publisher on his own of that. That is sent to we all need to grapple with. That is kind of what is happening with all of us now. For an incredibly auspicious beginning of Great National conversation, please join me in thanking gary rosen, Jeffrey Rosen and linzer. [applause] now, my great pleasure, ladies and gentlemen but our next treat and honor. So, the future Judicial Independence is a topic that youve heard about. Art thompson mention the headline in the daily mail, choosing judges as being the enemy of the people when they ruled against teresa may after the brexit vote. I am so honored to chair of the judicial track of our National Commission, weve been honored to have jeremy fogel agree. Judge fogel is a great judicial educator, head of the federal judicial center, which is responsible for continuing judicial education and heath ledger at the Constitutional Center this incredible series of symposia over the past three years for federal judges from all perspectives have converged to learn about the administrative state, race in the criminal Justice System and the future of religious liberty. He is a distinguished judge in his own right and this National Convener was deeply committed to Judicial Independence and im so excited hes agreed to share this track of our commission. Hell be moderating and he will interview two of our most distinguished federal appellate judges from different perspectives. He will introduce a more fully, but they are judge timothy tinker but for the 10th circuit in judge ramsay guy cole junior, chief judge of the u. S. Court of appeals for the sixth circuit. Please join me and join me in welcoming. [applause] thank you very match. One thing ive learned working with jeff rosen is i will never match his enthusiasm. That doesnt mean i dont feel it. It just means when youre a judge, you learn to modulate those names. Its really an honor to be here in such a Great Program and i hope that our part of it is as edifying as the first two were. I will say a little bit more about my colleagues. They are both terrific leaders and terrific judges. They lead very different circuit. Judge cole circuit is the sixth circuit, which is michigan, ohio, kentucky and tennessee. Just think about that for a second. Michigan, ohio, kentucky and tennessee. That is judge cole circuit and he will talk some about the challenges of being the chief judge in that circuit and how he has worked to honor the madisonian values and working things were in a respectful way. The chief judge of the 10th circuit headquartered in denver, the Mountain West plus oklahoma and kansas. I have worked with both of these gentlemen a lot in my role. Its not an accident they are here. Im delighted they are here, very happy they are here. They were appointed by different president. President clinton, judge tempter was appointed by president george w. Bush. One of the things well try to demonstrate in the next halfhour is despite these philosophical differences in different histories that we all have, we are committed to a common process in a common set of values. So we actually want to start. The 10th circuit has had several and i want to point out a new Supreme Court justices from the 10th circuit, Justice Gorsuch of the 10th circuit, and a hound all of the tough issues. They had the hobby lobby case that talked about the role of religious choice in relation to the Affordable Care act. They had samesex marriage as has the first circuit. Theyve had other issues involving religion and government. Judge tymkovich, tell us about these issues. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I used to be introduced coming from a hideout last with legalized marijuana. [laughter] maybe the 300 days of sunshine, that contributed to the culture on our court. You think of the third branch is the branch that doesnt have the factions and maybe other parts and i think to a large extent that is true. We had 200 plus years of developing a culture within the judiciary, particularly at my level, the Circuit Court level based on results in based on deciding cases respectfully. But that is not easy as judge fogel mentioned. We have 34 of the toughest cases over the last 10 years. Yet ive seen my court really engage in a way that i would like to think of all the other branches, institutions and a way that the engagement has been through a transparent, persuasive written product or we have to explain our different points of view. I think that is what makes the third range different. Our branch, the 10th circuit, we have been blessed with strong leadership over the last three years. We have a very collegial reputation, which we worked hard to create and endure. Theres reasons for that. Three of our last four chief judges have been very social and committed to collegiality and collegiality is not a mistake. Its earned. It takes time, trust and buyin. Is a deliberative process back to that matter the sony in value but also it is a cultural value of judiciary not just of people want to be nice to each other but it is partly baked into how we see ourselves. That is true with every branch of federal government i have seen that and the third branch is very flat. There is only a couple of layers of management. So if you come into the courthouse you will see the people that work for us really believe in the un mission some moldy active before they come on the bench and have the chance to work with pat background is a shared purpose in a respectful way. It has divided decisions with a vigorous dissent if there is not the majority but it is not personal. But those are strong positions from both sides but it isnt about personality and with as extra adjective most of us dont do that. I asked my wife and she said take that sentence out. Get that out of your system. [laughter] so that sixth circuit also has had very difficult challenges and in fact, that was the circuit that was at odds with the other in the sixth has had a tremendous amount of capital allocation. So these are the things that divide people saw a light to start my questions back through the 1990s there was some barely significant when judges are not speaking and there is still some fallout from that and that is interesting how you have approached that. Fate q. Judge and also to the center for having as i became chief judge a few years ago and i approached my new role i was on the court 70 years as setting the tone for this circuit because the Courts Mission in a centrally based upon the constitution is with that record that is before us so my mission was to reach the goal of into as good a job as possible to make sure the public had faith in our work and we were functioning impartially without influence so i decided the first thing i needed to do was to meet with the chief justice so ive met with my predecessor that was extremely supportive very good chief justice in my view and very supportive ever since. But my next goal was to meet with each and every judge of the circuit to make sure that we have an atmosphere that i heard those earlier speakers talk about that. And the way to get to that is to have their concerns your criticisms or any thoughts they had with this circuit the overall and i have continued to solicit their input so the fact i went to coated and meet with each of my colleagues. It is hard to believe there were different opinions but they had strong opinions and wanted to be heard so i fake it is very important with other aspects of society that it is doable so talk about affirmative action so those are cases that they are important with passionate views about how we interpret the constitution. And how we interpret the rule of law. But the goal in my view is to have confidential discussions where every view is valued and my opinion is more than any other so that is my goal. Our courts spans 36 million people. And that is a lot of people to be accommodated. It was very helpful to me than that intentionally to make this the important value if it was important to you and you took the time to make that personal as part of your relationship so the chief judges are the first among their peers but you never ask an article prejudge to do anything. [laughter] it is really hard. So part of what he said is to make that intentional effort but you also appeal to something so the reason the discourses the way we do things. And we have differing views. In the important thing of these open discussions in those other judges all are listening and with some degree of legitimacy. You dont have to hide how you feel that you will be personally attacked. And you dont have to agree. But you hope it will be principled and that is what i think is important to the courts. So without implying any political view the chief justice actually made a statement it couple days ago of judicial selection and he worries that the way the process is presented makes it look like evaded a political fight. And subsequently made the is. But the concern that he had was the courts internally dont work that way. With that accurate impression of how the courts go about processing. What do you think about that . I wish to be a fly on the wall. For the opportunity to see the nature as they have that respect it is an example of other branches of how we do business and that life tenure means that is a long time that to be very dynamic and we have had a turnover it is a very Dynamic Organization and the circuit level in they work really hard not to project that attitude and that is true across the circuit. The Supreme Court has 75 or 80 cases per year. These are the courts of last resort. So we had something that we go to raise savvier vetting process and with those at the addisonian principles and to what extent can that be a model for others as judges . The fair amount of it is exportable. Because the lawyers make up presentation and the judges but you dont have the benefit and they really are very productive preparing for oral argument with that the live british process in that knowledge you can bring together to come from different parts of the country as the ideologies you goes from one end of the spectrum to another and the ability for those judges to talk about very difficult matters to reach some sort of decision. With that Decision Making process every judge passed do discuss the matter but what i think would be comparable to other parts of society to entertain and with that consideration. And that Circuit Court across the country and now the most opinions are unanimous with that oral argument process with the need to do your homework in the need to bring other people along. And that notion of Judicial Independence also give us a sense we have the freedom to delve into an issue. But i think well love all of familiarity brings respect and understanding and the thinking process. And i respect the way they arrived at their answer with that methodology that we chivvies an example of. So with that independence that madison fought very hard was the state courts will let some or all of their judges and if you have this conversation it is different to tavis late on one side of the heather. To be used as a political statement. This is one of the reasons the framers were so interested in the other thing that in fact, i remember i just happen to have a conversation with two of those judges on the three judge panel deciding the case neither is very happy with the other they were frustrated and disappointed its like we arent human but Something Else comes into play speaking in your official capacity. Some of the judges to about their business to try to be completely free that we try our best. That is presented to us with every appeal but at the end of the day the public has faith to know that we are approaching these tough issues and they deliver live and impartial. [applause] now we have a 10 minute break. [inaudible conversations]