Thank all of our Reagan Foundation trustees, but in particular mr. Ted olson, a driving force behind this celebration. Ted, thank you so much for giving us this opportunity. [ applause ] we will turn to the legacy and discuss the contribution and the ways in which we will continue to see her hand in law and in the civic life of this great country. In 1966, outlining his vision of the creative society, Ronald Reagan advanced an initiative to take judges out of politics and articulated his vision of an ideal judge. He called for judges to be, quote, men with ability, men of honor and men who are fair minded. Well, when it came to his first nomination to the Supreme Court, president reagan delivered a nominee who realized his vision minus the men part. Listening to the sessions earlier today, we have gotten a taste of Justice Oconnors remarkable ability and the honor she brought to the court and the fairness and decency in which she approached her life and her craft. I like to think those
Its under attack in other countries, in other countries that we identify with, today, the uk, for example, and i am wondering what she did concretely and im told she was pretty fearless in her foreign visits. Well, when she left the court, the justice said that she felt she had five years to really accomplish something in her post court career. And so at georgetown law school, she started a project that was devoted to two things, civics and the independence of the judiciary. And about civics, she said the practice of democracy is not passed down in the gene pool, but needs to be learned new by each generation. And so we incubated with her what became civics. But because it was called civics, its called our courts. She felt there was a misunderstanding among young people about the role of judges in democracy. And the two things that came together, the concern about the independence of the courts and about civic education. She felt it was her responsibility to explain to young people wha
You kids always do this in politics but i would make the date january 20th january 20th, 2010. That is to the Supreme Court issued its decision united proving. Many people said it was a terrible day because of what influence back into election. I would argue a different reason. Not anything to do with that but the democrats have come to rely on Campaign Finance rules to keep their opponents from speaking in elections. So the court opened the gates again for people to speak they said if we can stop them the we will do the next best thing that we will harass and intimidate the that they will pay a political price if they continue to take part. We have conversations about this all mine we saw big attempt in congress to immediately do that with legislation that would of had a retribution effect on Companies Said they would have continued teeseven tell the story about the i. R. A. Scandal because i observed more about that from reading your book than i ever knew before teeone this is the fi
The power to reach out and touch you when appropriate. I assume you all pay taxes. This is a rite of citizenship. The right to be forgotten to remove data from the internet is a major issue, and microsoft trying to pud the internet, unlike us, as we get older and forget things we want to remember, the internet never forgets. It exists somewhere. That is why were seeing we need an international set of conventions to think through about how to control the data, monitor the data. And the last thought ill give you, when you believe that you understand where privacy is, the Fourth Amendment actually says as follows, its worth it to quote because its offer misquoted. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, housespapers and effects, against unreasonable searches elm definition of what a person is, what a house is, what a paper is some effect is litigated. Against unreasonable searches and seizures. Paul said, who decides what is unreasonable . What you should understand who dec
The world. As you may have seen in your own country, or as the slide show indicates, theres a Global Movement toward candidate debates making candidate debates a part of elections in a diverse range of countries. Its at least 65 countries so far. And i suspect the number is higher. Why are more countries organizing debates . I think there are several reasons. Debates provide a unique opportunity to compare candidates. They are generally the only time in a campaign when voters see and hear directly from the candidates, appearing side by side, in the same forum, at the same time. Debates also increase focus on policies in a campaign. In some countries, candidates traditionally campaign on personal attacks or slogans, personality, religion or ethnic loyalties. In contrast to our debate, forces candidates to have more indepth positions on the issues. For example, in jamaica, polling after a 2011 debate showed that 70 of the public was more informed on candidate policy positions because of