Transcripts For CSPAN3 Supreme Court And Foreign Relations 20160724

And the new global realities. Justice breyer is a longstanding front of the society. He has delivered lectures at the will be today. He is dinners, introduced speakers and we are fortunate that he is giving us this lecture. He truly is a man that needs no introduction and there is not an introduction i could do that would be complete in the time allotted. Tummy tuck on some highlights, he graduated with highest honors in stanford. And went to oxford where he received firstclass honors with a ba degree in philosophy and economics and politics. He went to Harvard Law School where he also excel. Articles editor of the law review. He then clerked for Justice Arthur goldberg and bike all caps, is very circumspect about his work. He doesnt knowledge that he contributed to the first draft does acknowledge that he contributed to the first draft of the griswold versus connecticut case. It is the case that recognized the right to marital privacy. After cooking for justice goldberg, he worked in the antitrust division of the criminal justice or he taught at harvard. He was chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee from 19781980. And he was nominated by president carter to the First Circuit nine days after carter had lost the 1980 election. He had so impressed senators on both sides of the aisle for his work on the Judiciary Committee that he was confirmed 8010. He then served for 14 years on the First Circuit in the last four years as chief judge when he was nominated to replace Justice Blackmun in 1984 edition the oath of office in august of 1994. Coming on the 22nd anniversary. If you would all please join me in giving a welcome to our lecturer who we are very lucky to have this year. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Very nice introduction. It wonderful group. Im talking little bit about history, but you know about history, and quite a lot. I was told by historian that anyone can make it, but it takes a genius to write it. [laughter] anyway, books are not that easy. My publisher is great. I wrote a book want about found its way into the hands of the Los Angeles Times reviewer. Dont ask me how. He decide to write a review and says, this is in the alice in wonderland, the dormouse emerged from a pool of tears and they have heard the story before. [laughter] the dormouse begins to read from humes history of england, where he reckoned that . Why we reading that says alice as we are wet and this is the driest thing we know and that was before breyer wrote the book. [laughter] it is terribly important that you support these kind of things because it is important that people know something of the history of the court. Im very glad to be here and im glad to be talking about this and im glad youre here listening. What is this book about . I said that it is, the analogy it is a kind of report, a report from the front. About what . If you ever the charterhouse, a very good novel, it opens with a hero. He is on the battlefield. Bullets are flying by and the horses are running back and forth and the napoleon is charging this way and that way. Feldongo things to himself and says something really important is happening here and i wish i knew what it was. [laughter] that is what this is about with respect to when i hear words like globalization or interdependence or a shrinking world. Cliches, but all true. I can tell you a big answer, but i can do this. I can draw my own extremes over the last 20 years or so and in terms of that experience which is here in this court, ive seen a change. The change is just in the number of cases where you have to know something about what is going on abroad in order to decide the case correctly and intelligently. Ive seen that number grow. I think they were rare when i first came here. Now he look it up and say, i think it is 1820 . I think you would be closer. Without try to do is say, i will tell you what it is like here. For those of you interested. I will tell you about this case is specifically. I will group them and i will show you different topics and under each topic i will give you some examples and then i will say, and what would you like me to do about it and how would you like to decide the case . They call on different skills and different kinds of knowledge. On going to do in the next 20 minutes or so, or half an hour, questions after, give you a few examples. Some are interesting and some are medium interesting. [laughter] lets go to a hot topic which has a mind long one of an short pit. Long wind up and short pitch. It has to do with civil liberty in times of security issues. Jackson said, looking to see what the framers thought about this kind of problem, the inherent powers of the president and powers of congress and the powers of Civil Liberties. Like trying to, joseph try to interpret the dreams of pharaohs. You start looking it up and discover there is not a lot written. It is not in the u. S. , why not . For many years, i think the general view of judges here as well as judges abroad were when you had First Security needs like a war or a Real Security problem, and you look at the document, the document says this power is primarily the president not the court. What about Civil Liberties . In the courts have something to say. Sometimes there is a class. Why is this a little . I think the law answer is cicero. He was not one of the founders. [laughter] that attitude prevailed for many years. Cicero said something like, i used to translate it this way, i would say when the cannons roar, the laws fall silent. At that as a good transition until somebody pointed out that the romans did not have cannons. [laughter] well, in time of war, when the arms are etc. , you see the point. The court live up to that . Yes. You will not find that many cases during 1812. Abraham lincoln, he had a real problem. But very few cases, the Supreme Court civil war, maybe lincoln did not get involved in Civil Liberties. Tens of thousands of people were arrested. The steward who was secretary of state the British Ambassador and said, this bill here, i can push this bell and have anybody i want in new york run into prison. I can push it twice and have anybody i want. Anyone indiana. The queen of england has such there were a lot of Civil Liberties problems. The court got involved after the war was over. That is different. That is Justice Jackson who thought it was a good idea. We will come in after the war and say what they did was wrong. I will not going to that, but not a workable judicial philosophy. [laughter] nonetheless, look and see what happens to Civil Liberties. The court does not intervene at all, lets go to world war i and there are many books written on this. About the masses, there is freedom of speech be interfered with and he was nearly alone or stayed away from it until after the war. Or world war ii, we know that. My mother used to take me down i group in San Francisco and we would drive down the peninsula he she said she said that is for the help the japanese in world war ii. The note of approval was not in her voice. 70,000 american citizens of japanese origin were ordered to report to the area and 70,000 american citizens were just moved because general dewitt said we better get them out of here, the japanese might invade and they might be a fifth column. They were citizens. They were told to report and they moved them. Roosevelt signed the order. It is not what happened to the germans or italians. It is what happened to the japanese here. They want to the camps against their well will. There was one person who said this was ridiculous and im an american citizen and i think they should not be doing this. If they want to go look at my background, fine. But not send me to some camp. And he found a lawyer. I met him once, very interesting. He was across the street from where we lived in cambridge. He was 80 years old at that time. Very feisty guy. He was having a drink with our neighbor and she was the neighbor daughter of a man. I was to play poker with her father. He was the head of the aclu in San Francisco. He represented him in this case. He said he would not sign the brick. They got into it later. It did get back into it. You see, this material 1942. January of 1942. Spring of 42 is when they signed the order to send him back. That was after pearl harbor. It was supporting it rewarding earl warren and said it was one of the worst thing she is ever done. It was opposing the . J edgar hoover. Said we could take care of it. [laughter] off they went. To the camps. He said we are going to win this. The case finally got to the court in 1944 and in 1944 there was no risk of innovation or a problem. Inpatient or a problem with submarines. Invasion or a problem with some rings. For the case went to the court the brief was in the Justice Department. Two lawyers got a hold of those and they read an article somewhere written by a commander in the navy had been involved in intelligence and they got suspicious of the story. The government was saying, the Defense Department was saying that they were in fact 760 incidences of intercepting communications, messages sent to some rings off the shore several instances of sabotage. He said i think we should look into this. He called in the fbi and said no, there was no sabotage. The sabotage to place after they had been moved. The fcc can back and there was not one instance of messages being sent out to summaries. What were the 753 messages those were all private to did not know how to work the machines. [laughter] they said that was interesting. How do you do this so quickly . We didnt do it. We did it in 1942. We showed it to the general. He knew it at the time. They would not sign the brief. They said they would not offended this. Then they had a defendant this. Then they had a big fight. She brought to mediate who did they bring to mediate . Herbert wexford. He was a master keenness and he wrote a footnote disowning the genius and he wrote a footnote disowning the army and rotate inward snow can understand. He convinced them to sign the brief. The Justice Department will who won the case . The government 63. A famous case. Who upheld the government . Black, douglas, from further the liberals who had in fact would a design brown versus board. There were on the governments side. The three dissenters were roberts, murphy, and jackson. There it is, 63. I thought for a long time they did just not understand. So little evidence. A footnote, who needs footnotes . [laughter] arthur goldberg, that years ago. I thought then i got the transcript for the oral argument and charlie gorski, he was representing the japaneseamerican defense league. He said to go read the footnote. That footnote denies that there is any basis to this whatsoever and it did. They had read it. What were they thinking . My guess is they were thinking cicero. While it was a guess, i later met someone, i had not gotten the source, he was the source of the conference and he said blackwater to this conference and he said well, somebody has to run this war. Either us or roosevelt. And we cant sleep better let roosevelt do it. So we better let roosevelt do it. I think that is what did it. By the way, the only one who read it 100 right was murphy. He got every fact right. This is the problem of the historian, i figure i will find out that somebody must have told him, he cannot know all of this. Earlier, he must have got to him. I found a person, his law clerk and ran everything. I called him and i said, now tell me somebody must have gotten to murphy. How did he get all those facts right . He says, i dont remember. [laughter] there we are. That is koimrimatsu. March onto the korean war and you will have the steel seizure case. The court there during the midst of the korean war, jackson and the others, they took president truman no, you cannot seize the steel males mills you they were told that if you do not seize the mills there will be a strike and people will be killed in. My of yesterday and a lot of this they told roosevelt cannot do it. He was dead. Truman was not nearly as popular as roosevelt have been. There we have it. Whatever the reason. They had gone too far. I think the people in that court were thinking he went too far. There has to be a stopping place. There is not much in the report. It shows a stopping place until you get the speech. And read his opinion. It is fascinating. [indiscernible] here. But, now you come up to more recent cases, for cases out of guantanamo. All brought by the detainees. Everyone of them. They detainees, not necessarily the most popular person in the United States. Brought against the president of the secretary of defense all for the detainee. Congress has passed a statute. They passed a statute and they could not get into court. Said it was unconstitutional. One of them says, one of the cases says im not abn enemy combatant. They said they could during world war i and world war ii. If they are not combatants, they said they were peaceful farmers. The government said, why did you have a bazooka . They say that every peaceful farmer in afghanistan has a bazooka. [laughter] there is an argument there. Now if to say, what do they have to do . I base have impartial decisionmakers. At least have impartial decisionmakers that can present an argument. In essence we have four detainees who won. What is the case about . What was cicero replaced by . If i had to choose 45 words, it would be the person who wrote in one of the cases and i joined her opinion and i support those it says she says the constitution does not write a blank check to the president not even in times of war. Great, fine. The unfortunate thing about that is what kind of check does it right . Now you are beginning to see the problem from our point of view. The point of the judge and the lawyers, what kind of check does it right . It is not hard when you are not in the business. But now we are in the business. If we are in the business of answering that kind of question, there has to be an answer. Now maybe you will see as well why are opinions are not particularly popular. Some groups have said you never should have gone back to this a gotten into the street you should be back at cicero. You want the japanese, 70,000 americans . The other side says you should have been more thorough or delicate. Shouldve had a few words and said what they could use hearsay or not. Why was it so big . Why so narrow . The true reason, we dont know the answer. That is the truth. We dont know. Lots of situations. What is the pitch . How will we find out. . That is not something we alone have to think about. If we are in the business of saying when he goes too far these efforts by congress and the president , narrow Civil Liberties in the name of security, at least we should know something about what we are talking about. That am i think requires knowing what other countries do. We had an exchange with the british that we spent two days try to grab what they were doing. We discussed all of this. What does france did . What does israel do . What works and does not work dr. The lawyers are going to have to find out because the lawyers going to have to sell it. That requires sources of information. They will come in and say judge there is no good reason for this. No reason, why are they doing it . They will have an answer. Somebody will have to figure out under what circumstances do the judge look at the answer and when do you do it in camera and when do not. Why not do it this other way . Lets return to means and that will be up there as a question, too. It will be the lawyers and probably some professors and judges doing what they usually do. Try to go into a subject which they dont know that much about. Learning about that and try to come out with sensible answers. That will involve knowing what happens abroad knowing that terrorism is not just a national problem. That is what i say. A long wind up and a short pitch. Some of it is not such a short pitch. Some cases involving international commerce. A case of really like, but it was interesting and quite a lot to me was students from thailand, cornell, he discovered that books, same books, textbooks, simile which family which is on sale in bangkok for a lot less money. He writes his parents and says send me a few. He sold them and the publisher got annoyed. The publisher brings a case against him. Whether he can or cannot buy and resell from thailand, theres an answer in a statute. The statute has a footnote, nothing compared to the statute it is really hard to understand. That is not my point. My point is i going to my office and there is a stack of reeves briefs and they are from every place in the world. Asia europe and not all about books and i said, why are all these lawyers and countries filing briefs . It is an interesting case. But this many . I find the answer down about here where one of the briefs says copyright today is not just a matter of books and music buying an automobile, it is filled with software and a lot of the software in some places is copyrighted. Or go into a shop, any shop you want and you will see goods in the goods will have labels and the labels will be copyrighted. They will type something, your answer to this case, the student from cornell, we think will affect 2. 3 trillion worth of products. Even today, that is a lot of money. [laughter] that is why they are there. Eventually the student one, but that is not my point. My point is this, this is all over the place. Can someone in australia canada someone in australia can some one who bought shares in an Austrian Company sue under 10 b five . A claim that the Austrian Company lied about it purchases made in florida of a company . Can they were cap a . Cant they . We have briefs from many countries and lawyers who say the government is wrong and it is the opposite, that is normal. And they are from all over the place. We can to the conclusion that they could not sue because, was Justice Scalia who wrote the opinion, the way would interfere with their own effort to enforce their own antitrust or antifraud law. My goodness, it comes up with force. A vitamin a street or in ecuador sues distributor in ecuador sues a company that makes vitamins and holland and susan in new york. Why new york sues them in new york. Why] new york why new york . He is in new york and he wants to sue and can he or katie canty . Cant he . If we allow the lawsuit, they will have real problems. That comes up with securities and antitrust and intellectual property are the only way you are going to get a sensible answer interpreting a statute of ours which does not clearly have the answer is to know how to interpret so the laws begin to Work Together in harmony to achieve an objective. In this case, it is an effort to try to bring you can find case after case where we are trying to get lots of Different Countries to work harmoniously together. Or treaties. We are interpreting treaties all the time. Lets go back or a second. For a second. Who is dolly ortega . She is from paraguay. She came to new york because she wanted and did find another man from paraguay who tortured her brother. She also found a statute passed in 1790s called the alien torts statute. Its as it it says an ailing can bring to court to two case thrill used to be that if you counterpart, you hang him. If you find a pirate, then you can can. Todays part. Torturers . That is what they said in the second circuit. She won. She went back to paraguay and set i can to the United States wanting to look at porter and the i that went back with so much more. She did not collect the money. The produced a whole industry and wasnt once an industry developed, it became, what are the limits . Who are todays pirates . There are some special things about this. One of the special things was the law of nations. Where do we look . Why is that a problem . It important to understand one reason why difficult or over both. Over, will over comeable. I think it helped expand some of the opposition to the attitude im showing, says that this constitution is constitution unlike europe. It is a document, not a document that is given by power through liberty, it is a document given by Liberty A Charter of power. The idea is the following, in europe, powers at the center. It is the king. It is still at the center. That power may produce a charter of liberty. They may and about at the same place as we do. But it is not the same. What this does, a residue of power where the power comes from is the people. This is a document that if they do not give you the power, you dont have it. See the difference . Think of people being taught tied that for 200 years . Suddenly it becomes clear what the remote and all action emotional action. We elect the congress and president. We dont elect judges but they are appointed by people we do alike. At least they are american. But who appointed as people . You see the attitude . How do we trust that back to us . That is the special problem we have. It does mean that you have to explain clearly why and how they got it. Or start thinking about what we going to do, what about apartheid . His apartheid is apartheid the equivalent of a pirate . Maybe so. People brought cases based on the theory and the South African government filed briefs saying we dont want judges in the United States getting involved in this. We have our own system called the truth and reconciliation commission. Ill be american judges are going to do is start getting everything mixed up, let us deal with our own problems. How is it that the american courts will treat that . Do whatever the state Department Says . Work out a system . Now we are beginning to see special problems. Areas like this, there is no separate courts of the world. Other countries may have similar statutes. We better be able to have a system however we interpret similar words here that will work out over all. The example used, we always read in the paper but it is true or not, every singapore country seem to want to sue Henry Kissinger. You can have a system where Henry Kissinger will be sued everywhere. The promo and try to illustrate is that problem on country goes street is somehow it has to work out. Would other countries do the same thing . There is no Supreme Court of the world. To have a final rule on such matters. All those kinds of difficulties and more are involved in the 1020 words and that alien torts statute and it is difficult and has been to this court at least twice. We try to figure out answers and sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not. That human rights. A little example of it. Right there. Why did i say treaties . Because i began to think of treaties as always being subject matter for a course. Of course. We have three cases over two years that involve ethical treaty. The induction of children. abduction of children. They are called domestic relation judges in the state. It is a really hard job. Very difficult. One of them, he told me he always starts when the fighting couple, i hope you can work this out because if you cannot, i will tell you that i will decide it and it will be worse than what you workout. Very hard. Who knows even less about it . Federal judges. We stay far away from domestic relations. White heavens name was on to interpret a treaty on child abduction . Because it is a treaty. My goodness, there are sort of warring groups. Nobody is for child abduction. They are saying it has to be interpreted a certain way or that will be too much child abduction. People on the other side who feel strongly about abuse of women. Very often, the abduction is motivated by abuse so they have to go to different courts in different parts of the world make it somewhat subtler arguments to different courts and asking us, we have two cases. Why are we do this business . Because marriage today is more and more a question of National Boundaries that crosses. It is just going to get more. By the way, there are treaties, nobody disagrees with the proposition that you have to look to foreign law. You should look to foreign law. You must look to what foreign courts say. What effect you are interpreting a treaty. Everyone agrees with that. Well, ok. Is that something that comes up often . A professor had his students go out and look into got an answer. How Many Organizations are there in the world . Lets do that lewis was. Created by a treaty or executive order or created by something. What have the power to have a bureaucracy and that bureaucracy makes rules. Those rules have this characteristic. They bind individuals or companies of more than one nation. You can think of the world trade organization. Parts of the united nation. Now suppose you want to count up how Many Organizations, how many think they are do you think there are . More than 100 . 1000 . 2000 . There are more than 2000. We belong to 800900 of them. International lutheran blue fin or the International Olive oil council. They are all over the place in london he was not think of. You will not think of. The students will know two seconds. What organization affecting every single day more than any other . Icon. I have a puzzled look. They know. If the organization that deals with your name names domain names. It regulates the internet. It is a company in los angeles or sort of a company. They are making rules that affect everybody. Or the banks and where they meet and so do our regulators and they go to bahl and discuss problems and agree on what to do. Then regulators go back to the countries and followed the rules to be everybody test to comment on what their party decided. They already decided. [laughter] nonetheless, that is going on in a lot of places. Gradually, these questions are coming up to the court. I will give you an example of a big question over europe, we have not had it yet. Can congress delegate the authority to do what . If we say they cant delegate any authority, how will solve the worlds problems . Not that we will solve them, but we can make a dent. But if you say they can delegate to the International Olive oil council, whatever they want to delegate what happened to article one . The ledges and powers and the president. Sorry, it is the congress. [laughter] gone. Just a small point. [laughter] you see . The tha does that sound like a similar question were familiar question . What are these agencies . Where does this is say anything about an agency in the constitution . In famous cases, they gradually solve the problem. I begun to be in a similar situation . Al qaeda organizations that make up all kinds of organizations that make up the thousands of institutions we belong to that make rules. Maybe. They certainly have the problem in your. Theyve had the problem in europe and records. In three courts. They have had to look through the eu treaties and say those our constitution in fact delegate . Does it give them, the government, our government, the power to make a treaty that gives all of this power to the European Union . All three have said no. They have said there are certain things reserved, they never ask a found one. [laughter] but a principled there are certain things reserved. We have not had that question yet. I think it will come about. I cant predict the future but nonetheless, a good chance. We have doubled around the edges. Nibbled around the edges. All i am try to do is to give you a taste, a report of whether you are talking about treaties or human rights or commerce or whether youre talking about where there are a few cases security versus Civil Liberties. The world that we are in is a world where you must look beyond your own shores and how and when and under what circumstances is, of course, what the lawyers and law professors and judges are busy doing. More and more and more. That is all this book is about. It does have some reasons as to why. I think that is a portion important. The least important reason perhaps, if that there are a lot of people who think you should never cite foreign cases. I dont agree with that. Nonetheless, there are a few and i would you say to those people, look, youre talking about not looking what goes on elsewhere, are you serious . Ive tried different kinds of arguments and some people feel that very strongly and i a great argument. I said a condiment of the a copy of the book. Congressman a copy of the book. He was against referring to cases. He said limitary why we do that. More and more countries have constitutions like ours and have judges for enforcing the documents and problems ours. If i see a person who has a problem like mine and a judge like mine and a document like mine why dont i read what he says. Maybe i will learn something. I thought that was a great argument and he said fine, just dont refer to it in your opinion. [laughter] not only to quit said, there a lot of countries where this is a new thing and this new thing the courts to go to their budget fighters and say, it is important that you Pay Attention to judges, you are the Supreme Court of the United States and they cite us, what is wrong with that . The defense of had to get them in a position where it finds them in a position to defensive or its roots them a letter defend Civil Liberties and it is fine. Send them a letter. Will we solve the problems unless we can know what is happening in other questions countries . Sometimes we have to follow it and other times we dont. Not knowing about it, what you are concerned about is preserving basic american values. I agree with you. That is important. When you read this, i think you will think that maybe the best way to do that given the nature of the problems in front of us, the best way to do that is to know what is going on elsewhere in to help and to help because if we do not help, the world will go on without us. We will be affected by what people do anyways and so whether it is bahl or the well commission, maybe we ought to find out so that it will not go on without us. And that we will make contributions for the environment, security, health or commerce which are all around us. Do you see the point . If you go really deep to some degree, the things that it lane our predicament when we Start Talking about american values, i think it was lincoln, corny but true, he said i can despair, gettysburg, four score and seven years ago, why this, it brings us back to the declaration of independence. He does not want the constitution. It said that all men are created equal. The constitution does not. Four score and seven years ago our fathers came forth upon this constitution cosan and greeted it nation created a nation is at all men are created equal. We are now engaged in a great conflict to see if this nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. That is what i want the schoolchildren to memorize. You dont think about it too often. When they wrote this document in the 1780s, there was no other place like this. There were all kings. It was an experiment and people were sitting around writing that it wont work. Maybe it wont. They dont know if it will work or not. The exit have a document to that protects basic liberties that depends upon democracy, that might be good on paper but it will never work. They felt that this instrument michael might work. Said he would fight this war, i will fight this war even if no slave or free. Maybe he did. I would fight the war to free half, i would fight the war to free all. What he is thinking this, wifi this war because if the country why fight this war because of the country falls apart, it does not work. That is the part, to communicate. That part, we are still in it. We are still in the experiment. Will be expected to work or not work . The experiment work or not work . Today that excrement means for all of us who are lawyers or judges, it means that problems, environment, commerce, liberty treaties, whatever they are, the our global they are global. When you accept that, either we show that you can somewhat do with these problems, at least help a little bit through cooperative efforts which means try to have rules laws, or rules of law, that is one way to do it. If we cant show people that you can do it that way, they will choose other ways. In the other ways are horrible. And to what goes on in the world,. And see what goes on in the world. There is a program in my thinking. The program instantly to show people the tremendous importance of learning these details, of seeing what is going on, trying to work out through a way and there are many ways of trying to reach beyond our own shores so that we can show that a rule of law, that is a rule of law, does protect human rights. Does protect democracy and it can contribute something to the world problems. That is called supporting the rule of law itself. There you have it. Where i started, with books about and why wretched. I wrote it. Thank you. [applause] when you signed up, everyone is given an opportunity to ask questions. I will read a couple. From an alumnus of the society of Supreme Court Summer Institute for High School Programs and rights, my Foreign Policy class is conducting a simulation of the National Security Council Debate over the use of enhanced interrogation techniques against his back to terrorists. How do you recommend we prepare for such a debate . What legal principles are essential for my students to understand this competition competition are complex issue . Read the documents and see what the facts are. Start with the facts. Oddly enough, sometimes the facts are not what you think. I think reading, i would read jacksons opinion in steel seizure. I think that is an interesting opinion. You get that and start asking questions about that opinion, he will say, what is the answer to this . Why does he think that harry truman went too far. Why when all of his advisers told him that he had to do this where will be terrible what role would you in fact have and what does your experience in world war ii tell us . And etc. I think something she might not otherwise government that opinion. And the steel seizure case. You can look at guantanamo also. It might start you in that direction. You could have a good debate in the class. What do these four cases tell us. I would read, it depends how far you go. You can go short of that and get more interesting. Or on brock, an opinion on some form of torture in israel. He writes, it is so interesting it was not some terrible, it was a form of torture. He says, do you think i dont understand, do you think i dont understand the fact that there can be somebody who knows when they are going to blow up a cafe and if what is try to do by saying to the mother im fine but he said to go put the bomb underneath the chair and said it all. Do you think i dont understand that . I do understand it very well. I understand why you think there is a need. But he says, we are judges and you cannot ask a judge to approve torture. And that is the opinion. Read that. Rejection and then maybe have a few examples. The second question, in an increasingly globalized legal world, the spring courts decisions serve as a guide sometimes explicitly through citation and quotation for foreign courts. In what circumstances does the justice consider the courts global audience cracking the decision crafting their decision . And opinions on foreign country setting district and state Court Circuits . Is this concerning . It is not a concern. People can focus on what they want. Let them cite what they want. An honest opinion is an opinion that tells the real reason why the judge is deciding this way. We cite lower law review articles. Briefs, all kinds of things. I dont see anything wrong with citing whatever people want to side. As far as an audience concern, for our opinion abroad, that is their problem. Not my problem. My palm is to get this thing done correctly. Problem is to get this thing done correctly. It may turn out that such the example is ive given you were very helpful to know what other people have done. If other people find what we get done is hopeful to them, that is fine. That is their problem, not our problem. My problem is to get this opinion written correctly, that is hard enough. One last question. If someone were to make a summer study of important nonamerican legal textsa to better understand, yet many you would recommend . I would read the israeli Supreme Court justice and something about the german constitution. It is interesting. It had quite a few cases. That is changing rapidly. I would look up professor sikacy. Thank you very much. [applause] i want to thank in particular, this is the most demanding time of the year for the courts as they come close to the end of the term and to devote this time to something, we really do think. A standing ovation for. [applause] i want to thank everyone who has come here today. For those of you that are taking the tour at 3 00, the outside there. I want to mention that the book shop open and if you are think going thinking of graduation gets, there is one in mind that is signed and down stairs. For those who will join us at the annual meeting of trustees at 6 30 tonight and for those of you have reservations, the reception will be at 7 00. I give a much and i look forward to seeing you this evening. [applause] you are watching American History tv all weekend, every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. Each week until the 2016 election wrote to the white house rewind it brings you archival coverage of president ial races. Next, john f. Kennedy except his partys president ial nomination at the 1960 Democratic Convention in los angeles. He says his opponent, Richard Nixon, is an undeserving air to the dwight d. Eisenhower presidency. In addition, kennedy addresses concerns surrounding his catholic faith and offers himself as the leader for what he calls the new frontier of American History. John f. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon in a close general election with less than 1 of the popular vote separating the two candidates. The speech is just over 20 minutes and our coverage is from nbc news