Jews that rejects liberalism. The reformed jew, the secular republican was noted all. Modern levels of is the antithesis of duty as a liberalism is the antithesis of judaism. A was the first time we had just guide that expected us to be just people. Us to beat expected just people. The punishment shall not exceed the crime. Justice,dont want which is why they assert that insert a modifier before the word. It is something they do over and sure wein to make support the opposite. Truth matters. It is important to be correct, but not when your liver. You are a liberal. They entered the modifier politically before correct and become the opposite. Women who are the majority are the minority because they put the modifier of breast oppressed. Jews are not a minority, social justice is the opposite of justice. The more jewish you are by knowledge, practice, and education with the more less likely you are to vote democrat because democrats despise the concept of justice. [applause] before i get to the next question, i guess you and i are both whopping jews that vote republican. We are an elite group. Beckis your view on glenn and his efforts to bring truth to journalism . He made a very big mistake in my eyes, which is charging. I really dont watch a lot of ienn beck, god bless and, think we have to come from different directions. I think this is an ideological war, thank goodness it has not been violent for the most part, but it has always been from the left when we have had violence. Al sharpton, no justice, no peace. Give me what i want, we will bring violence. Era, it isliberal always been from the left. This is an ideological war, and we need every weapon, which is why got back into standup comity. Comedy. I was a screenplay writer, but after 9 11 when i said my liberal friends say we deserve these attacks, that it was the chickens coming home to roost, that we were all little i have to fight this war. I had to find the weapon we were missing. A bill more from the white from the right, and that is what i going to do. [applause] the prostitutes on my arms. [laughter] have you been able to convert any of your liberal friends or relatives . Many, many, many. [applause] and here is how you do it. Except for the fact that my poison starting to go, and i do not know what your rules are, i am willing to answer questions about because as a conservative in the bay area, i have nowhere else to go. [laughter] i have a program that i call adopt a democrat. Isause the and good news that america is not divided in two, we are divided in three. There are those of us who get it, that right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, ugly and beautiful exist. We seek to conserve those things that are beautiful, good, wonderful, most especially in this room tonight, the exceptional United States of america. [applause] and so we seek to conserve this can and that is why we call ourselves conservatives. All the way on the other side are people like my friend rosie odonnell, about whom there is nothing you can do anything about. She is a, a troubled idiot. This is how she gets out her anger, and thinks that she is smart. Remind me what im talking about, eventually. Cspan, do you have enough battery life . The two questions i always get you liberal are jews liberal, and what happened to build more bill marr . He was not this sick, radical, leftwing hate job that he is now. Bill has not changed one whit. Bill was never a libertarian, hes not a liberal can be that a modern liberal, he is not a leftwing fanatic for he is a sick narcissist. Needs strangers to tell him how great he is. When we did the show out of new york city, out of the show you walk down or take the elevator down, and you walk to where youre going. Passastore men you drivers,cap construction workers. You have to appeal with people with jobs. To lose show moved out angeles and hollywood, you leave the studio could we get in your car, the eight goes up, there taxidrivers,n, people of the bus stop who do not understand what youre saying. You keep driving until you get to your gated community. Who is there to tell you that you love you . Susan sarandon, alec baldwin, the other hollywood superstars. Allid not change at all, that changed was the city from which the show was being done. Left,ve the people on the but there is somebody that i believe i believe that the vast majority of people who vote democrat do not hate america. They have been lied to, my friend and shapiro makes a great point. Both campaigns accomplished what they wanted to accomplish. Trademney campaign were obama as a good and decent family man who happens to be stunningly incompetent, and the Obama Campaign portrayed romney as a dog waiting, woman hating, homosexual hating men, who used cancer for more money. Dont know a Single Person who votes democrat. Gonow lots of people who against republicans. The leftcannot honestly protect and defend, that is why objectivity is undesirable. If you are raised to believe that it is a hate crime to think, everything we do is racist. What you need to find is a whole bunch of the middle, the people who have neverat heard from a conservative what a conservative believes. Where would they have heard it . Cbs . Or nbc . The New York Times . Or the Washington Post . Thee are three mediums that liberal hates. Fox news, conservative talk radio, and the blogosphere. Truth. Org, you should look into them. Fox news is only 15 years old. If your friends are my age, that ns they were 38 the court before there was a single Television News program that did not advance leftism. Tie conservative talk leg radio to rush limbaugh, that was 20 years ago. Already old by dr. Nation and education, well into my family news talk radio and fox and the bloggers here sphere, 2004 when they caught dan rather using forged documents. But as the first time they have been caught. You can find somebody in your life who you know is naughty braindead radical leftist. If you have one in your family, just love them. Top talk about the weather, but then there is global warming, so [laughter] one more question. Important that it be somebody in your life. What they do is they dismiss us as not not see, fascist, and raises, which they cannot do if youre their brother. Time, dont take every fight, do not take every story, do not pick every issue. Most of the time of his talk sports or whatever, but when they Say Something particularly moronic, like that guy should not have made that video, you take the opportunity to lay out the facts. It is like adopting a child. Every once in a while, but then win. Let thenm write, i write i and my friend bought coffee shop i write at my Friends Coffee shop. I put out an and coulter book, just to bug him. It became harder for him to dismiss me that the caricature that the media portrayed. If you can change just one person, we double our numbers. How does the Mainstream Media get away with sustained professional malpractice . Why do people keep buying their product . First of all, they are not. The New York Times had to sell their building, and then use that money to pay rent on their building. Ratings are dwindling everywhere but fox. Cnns numbers are the lowest in 20 years. Interesting i know this about hollywood, money is not the primary concern. To the owner of the New York Times, who inherited his fortune when did nothing to earn it. He really doesnt care, he will always have enough money. He would rather that they go down in flames than tell the truth. Thank you so much. Dont forget to buy my book. [applause] on this celebration of the Martin Luther king holiday today here in washington dc, and live picture of the king memorial. Theres been a steady stream of visitors posing for pictures, reading the descriptions on the statue. Tall, and is 30 feet by comparison, the statue of lincoln in then Lincoln Memorial is 19 feet tall. The address for the memorial has the sole special significance, it is the street and success address for the 1954 civil rights act. As we continue to watch the scene here we are covering several events today relating to the king holiday. Today president obama and the first family are taking part in a Service Project in the d c area. We will record that of have that for you later today. Withakfast this morning speeches by Vice President joe biden, all of that coming up later on cspan. Earlier this morning at the site of the moro memorial, the degraded rna wreathlaying ceremony in honor of dr. Kings legacy. Here is a look. We are going to have the reverend say a prayer force commander we are going to encourage everyone to go out and do your day of service. Thank you for joining us. Were would have one more song by the choir. Then the reverend will dismiss us. We appreciate all of our guests who came out for the program. Thank you for joining us. Let us bow our heads. God, we give you thanks for the light, legacy, and memory of this great profit. Prophet. We lay this wreath in celebration of what he has done. We go forward from this life, assuming our own responsibilities, to see what the end will be. Amen. Amen. Rocking my soul in the bosom of abraham. Rocking my soul in the bosom of abraham. Rocking my soul in the bosom of abraham. Oh, rocking my soul. The Associated Press reporting today congressman James Lankford of oklahoma announcing he will seek the retiring Senators Senate seat. Runtwoterm republican who ran unopposed will join other potential candidates. Know, truthfully, that every single problem in america would be better if more people could read, write, and comprehend. I just know that. We would be able to compete with the rest of the world. We would not have these children who are committing crimes because their families do not have jobs. They do not have jobs because they cannot read, they cannot write, they do not understand. I think every thinking american is coming to that conclusion. We have got to educate our children, and we have to educate their parents. It is at just a whim, necessity if we are going to compete in this world. Tonight lady arbor but, on cspan, cn, span3, cspan radio, and c span. Org. Stephen breyer said it is not a matter of if, but when cameras will be allowed in the port court. He was speaking at the Washington Center for internships and economic hours andeven academic seminars. Hour. S just over an [applause] my pleasure to be here. Youre going to talk about congress, and the branch of government that works. [laughter] this is flattery. Let me start out by asking what you did today. Theyrikes me as unusual, had a challenge to the president s resource recessed power. This is something that the Supreme Court has never had to think about before. Here we are 200 plus years into our nations history. Is it surprising that there are still nooks and crannies of constitution that comes before the Supreme Court . It is not surprising. Pick, it isne to unusual for a father. [laughter] kennedy,for senator and i love doing that, so i am delighted that the school and the Kennedy Institute are together, on a project that would have been dear to his heart. Youre here because you are already successes, and youre interesting in how Government Works, and youre willing to learn about it. From our point of view, this is allocation ofht time because the decisions about the United States are not made in the courts. Are there parts of the constitution that we have never considered before, yes. About two only been in history that have been experts on the tonnage clause. You have to understand that the courts are not really there to interpret the law, they do interpret the law, but the reason that the courts are there are because people get into arguments. There are billions and billions of arguments, almost all of them settled. Youro not get too angry at friends are going to sit for too long. You work it out. Senator kennedy used to tell his staff to go work it out to that is an attitude that we found, but that is what the courts are therefore, when you cannot do that. No country would work if it were that 99. 9 of all disagree with or worked out. If there about money, family, or whatever, you go to a lawyer. The lawyer is supposed to work it out. The usually do, but not always. If they cannot, they are in court, and the court gets settlements, a huge number of them. , if they still cannot work it out if they still cannot work it out, maybe they will have a trial, and some appeals. Of those billions of argument, some will come to us to settle. Despite thet disagreement of what the correct answer is to this question, they have worked it out. Now they have raised a way of working out. You get the hard cases. You will see this. Jefferson may have said one thing, hamilton another thing, they may have had an attorney general for the president. Several president s have said another thing, Congress Said the opposite. Thisors of all parties, morning you get more from one party, and when this president was of a different party, you thethe same things from senators of the opposite party. People switched sides. The critical issue at the moment is that they found an area that is concrete, definite, and they can disagree about it. Were these reticular particular appointments proper . What does this mean . What does may have been mean . Argued, there are all kinds of complexities, and eventually we had to decide. When youre looking at the closer to should provide to answer a question like this at the constitution, to answer a question like this, the lower courts have provided an opinion too. Would you have to decide a purpose of a provision in the constitution, which you will have to do in this case, how do you know what the Founding Fathers had in mind . That is a good question. Let me show you something that is true of the constitution, and also of an ordinary statute. You have some words. The question is how do those words apply . How shall they be interpreted . How do we apply them in this case or that . Extreme, i opposite can give you an example that has nothing to do with the law. I discovered in france a new story. News edit said there was a High School Teacher on a training he was carrying, in a basket, 20 live snails. He taught biology, and he was going to show them to the class. It was not his lunch. The conductor said you had to i a ticket for the snails, and he said what . And it says read what the tariff says. A one may bring animals and basket, or they have to buy ticket. They were talking about cats and dogs. They were talking about animals. Is a snail in animal . Oh. Whether youre talking about the appointments clause, when you talk about the freedom of speech, which is not explain itself, whether high or low, whether detailed or not, virtually every judge almost always uses the same asic tools to try to find the answer to a difficult question. One, you read the text. If it says animal, one thing we know for certain is it is not a carrot because the carrot is not an error and will an animal, no matter what. The text whats on put on limits. They do look at the history, where did this phrase come from of what was the history of the statute . Third, you look at tradition. Suppose a sense of the about habeas corpus. There is a tradition that surrounds those words. Fourth, you look at the precedent, there are earlier cases that have some relevance. Somebody had an edit active in putting that word in an tive in putting that word in the statute. What was the purpose . Of, look at consequences deciding one way or another in the site in the light of the purpose. If you are looking at the First Amendment, that is the cobwebs of speech. The Fourth Amendment is consequent as of privacy. All judges use posix tools, but judges very in the emphasis that the give one or the other. Torobably give more weight the purpose and the consequence. My fellow judge would take into t the history, and i would give the language. The tradition, the president precedent, that is the same with this case today. That is why people do i look at history . Look at the Second Amendment. Guns. Ithe basic purpose could not figure out the basic turbos, without looking at history. We got into a detailed discussion, and they will look into more history than i am willing to. This was the Supreme Court decision in 2008. For the first time in our nation history, the Supreme Court said what the Second Amendment means. You talk about history, the court is divided 54, so history does not always provide the answer . Courte judges on our thought that the Second Amendment but which says a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state about right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Heres what it is about. The they passed constitution, madison and hamilton, they wanted that document, which they knew was a good one, to be ratified. But there were people around causing trouble. It was a close question. One of the arguments that they raised was that we have just. Ought a war of independence state militias were part of the revolutionary army. Thefirst article to constitution says that congress can call up the state militias and regulate them. How do we know that congress will not do it and destroy the state militias . Fear not, said madison and hamilton, we will pass a bill of rights, the Second Amendment will stop congress from calling them up. If that is what this is about, it is a great historical interest, very little practical fell you value. It was atrophic argument, but argument, butific only for people accepted it. People believed that it was about the people, in both cases we are looking at history. When you apply, you still have to apply it in light of her process, in light of what is going to be the practical result, and what the content of that Second Amendment is. Very open, it is not in decided by our court. Sometimes you have to fill in the blanks. Sometimes your deciding what it means. Consider the case the Supreme Court said about the constitution that says anyone who wants to be elected to congress has to be a u. S. Citizen, have to live in the state of tennessee, and then try to enact term limits of candidacy, and then try to enact term limits. This case reminds me a little bit of that one. Is term limits constitutional . Lets look at the text. Sayays a can arkansas that its members of congress can serve no more than two terms, or four terms . Be 25ext says you have to years old, and the an american citizen, and be a citizen of the state from which you come. Is can you addon another qualification . What did the founders say . Jefferson said monday, madison said another. They said opposite things. Pretty typical. Lets look at consequences, purposes. Can you not add qualifications . They added a property qualification . Ase they you cannot be lunatic . [laughter] clearly not. Balanced. Y evenly opinion, theye said we could not add one. The 10th amendment reserves the power to the state and what our power, and how strongly should that be interpreted . Are electedcongress wait,officials well, they are technically a federal official, but they are state official and it is the emphasis that you put. There are no real answers to a lot of these questions. We are going with the answer that we think is right. Close,uestions are very and theres just no obviously correct answer. Is awfullyfession it tempting to say theres good and theres bad, and theres right and theres wrong. That is not how it looks. Or in my profession, more likely to say liberal and conservative. Correct. How do you avoid deciding a case based on how you would like to comment out like it to come out . If you cannot base it on history, purpose, or consequence, how you a sit on say how do you avoid saying i think this is the way it should be . I never get to do what i want. [laughter] is as much of that if i feeling because were to ask you honestly, what do you think controls these close questions, most of you will write down politics. The members of the Courtyard University politicians Junior Varsity politicians, but i say no. The reason being, why do we have the power to make a decision that what the elected branches of government did violate the constitution . That John Marshall made it up, but he did not. If you look at the histories of the time, the vast majority of the people in the convention thought that the judges would have that power. Why . It, he says wens have written a beautiful document. Act, and hascomp lasted a long time. In the federalist 56, hamilton says this is a beautiful document, but if somebody does power to say the when the branches of government have gone too far, set boundaries and guidelines, lets hang up in a museum. Beautiful people can admire it, but put it in the Smith Otis Smithsonian except it wasnt there yet. You have to have somebody, who . The president . Too much power. If he can do everything he can do, and say this in the constitution or not, that it is too much. Congress . It is a democracy . He writes in effect, he says and do itill do it all right as long as the popular answer. They are experts in popularity, they know popularity. If they didnt, they would not be where they are. This document gives the same rights to the least popular to the most popular. So we better not give this to a group of people who are really persuaded by what is popular too much of time according to hamilton, to do this job. The judges. Why the judges . , nobody great grey knows them, it is a legal job, and they will not be persuaded by popularity. The do not have the power of the purse, and the do not have the power of the sword. So they will be careful. That is basically what he says. If we wanted to decide politically were really flying in the face of what the level that hamilton wants in the ,ace of what hamilton wanted the only explanation i have ever seen of that is from a political perspective he would rent a civil war. It probably helped created. Judges are terrible politicians. Very few of them have been elected to anything. We dont have the capacity, and it is not the job. I eight hours on this one, i do not think people decide politics, real politics is where are the votes . Who is going to get elected . I think i could convince you of you mean ideology . Are you a marxist . A Free Enterprise are . Am atch myself think i thinking i am doing it because it fits into some ideological world, i know it is wrong. There is a third thing, ima imo i am. , i am fromtanford california. Test that the new it is aes has, and dialect test that tells you where you are from. The city for fresno and bakersfield. I grew up in california. It is pretty good. My point is that i have the background i have. Most of us have certain views about our profession at it. The global at a philosophical level. Fit in, how does law fit in . When you get to these great big open constitutional questions, i think that that plays a role. What is the freedom of speech . 14th amendment. Equal protection of the laws. Liberty,ation of life, or property without the due process of law. By the time they reached the Supreme Court, there are good arguments of both sides, most of the time. A persons background, how they see the law, how they developed over time, it does have an impact. It cannot be avoided, and i do not think it is wrong. That is one reason why these terms last a long time. With different views appoint different people. Now any president who thinks that he is going to get the decisions he always wants. Surely wrong. Roosevelt appointed wendell holmes. He ended up deciding in the wrong way in an antitrust case. They may have more luck at a deep holocaust call philosophical level. Even then they do not always get the one they want. San francisco, i was born and grew up in. Lived in cambridge, massachusetts an awful lot of times. I have seen a lot of agreements disagreements, but i did not know what one was until i came here. I wish those people agree with me more. Over time, i thought, it is a big country. There are a lot of different points of view. People. 310 million they think every race, religion, point of view possible. Well, it is not so bad that you have courts with it and points ofview, based at that level philosophic philosophy or different basic approaches. It is ok. And i am not always in the minority. It shifts a lot. Is a miraculous thing. I see it every day. Miraculous thing still that these 310 Million People have decided to resolve law. Differences under the it was not always that way. It only took us a few horrors like the civil war, slavery, 80 years of legal segregation. The country has not always been on a great track. But with the ups and downs, this rule of law has arrived, and it is a tremendous advantage to our country. I talked to student audiences. I like talking to student audiences, as you can see. I said, the remarkable thing about bush v. Gore, which often comes up, i heard senator reid say, the remarkablethe country n on a thing never is remarked upon. Tremendous disagreement, very important case, affects a lot of people, and this important matter decided by unelected authorities, and by the way, judges are human. And they are sometimes wrong. I thought they were in that case. I suspect senator reid thought so, too. Not popular. At least 50 thought it was wrong. Maybe more. Nonetheless, they followed it. O guns no riots in the street. Fabulous. I know my studio audience will say, i am sure 20 of you are thinking, too bad there were not riots. Really . Set andthe television see how countries were when they design their problems that way. That is a cop located into to question. Let me ask you one more before we invite questions from the students. There was a recent study that let me ask you one more before we invite questions from the students. There was a recent study that showed only 50 of americans could identify john roberts as chief justice, more than two thirds could name a judge on said the idol you have constitutions democracy assumes that we understand how the Government Works. This audience is clearly an exception, but are you worried that schools no longer teach civics and government as much as they once did and we are building a population that does not understand how the Government Works . Yes. I follow sandra oconnor, who is always talking about this, as is justice kennedy. We talk about it all the time. Ask anyone in public life, members of congress. They would not be in public life if, at some level, they thought the government was important. I do not have to tell you that, because you are here. But of course, generally, i cannot tell people your age what to do. I cannot. They would not do it anyway. I cannot tell them what to do. I hope they will find someone to ave, i hope that they have career that they can practice, and i hope they will devote some of their life to civic affairs, which at any Level Library commissioner many Different Levels to participate in political life. Of course, i believe that strongly. I cannot tell you what to do but i have become more familiar with this document, and i can fill you, if you do not, the document will not work. It assumes a basic knowledge and understanding of how the Government Works. It assumes knowledge of the fact that the document itself we are looked the border patrol. But thees borders, decisions of how your community, state, how the nation will work, what kind of country, city, what want, it leadsu to you, the democratic process. We cannot decide those things. Of course you have to participate. I found a good quotation that i will use some time. He was talking about athens, it century bc. In a funeral oration he says why athens is so great. Etc. Racy, i foundvery few people participt still better a few than none. He says, what do we say in athens about a man who does not participate in public life . We do not say there is a man who mind his own business. We say there is a man that has no business here. That is what the document said. Very good. We have a long line of questions from both sides of the room. We will start here. John graves, harvard extension. You first, if ask you have ever presided over a case that you knew you got it wrong. I think you alluded to the fact that that was possible. Have you would ask, you ever voted against your conscious to uphold the law . If you really have a tremendously strong conscientious objective, and you could not do it, you should not take the job. What i was confirmed, i was asked the question, how do you feel about the Death Penalty . By said if i was against it so much on moral grounds that i could not read myself to follow at that time 20 years ago, that i should not take this job. So i would like the job and i hope you will confirm me. Terriblethink it is so that i could not bring myself to vote against. That is far as i went. A matter of conscience, i voted in many cases where i would have far preferred the resulting be the opposite. I voted in many cases where i would say, i cannot believe this , but the mixture of morale and he and other things in that, i do not separate out. The law is supposed to work on moral ground. The criminal is supposed to punish those people who deserve to be punished. It does not always work out. Then you have to take into account the need to have laws that are not perfect and people not being perfect. Jordan, university of san diego. We briefly touched upon term limits. I wonder if you thought there were any negative aspects to lifetime appointment for Supreme Court justices . Yes, there are. As far as i can see, it would be good, and may be preferable, from an individual judges point of view, if it were longterm. 18 years. The term would have to be long. Would have to be long. When you do not want from the Public Interest review point job . Ew is, what is my next not a good idea. Prefer if itlly were a fairly lengthy term of , and may be preferable, from an individual judges point of view, if it were longterm. 18 years. Years for a lot of reasons. Nonetheless, it is not. The chance for a constitution the constitution says term for good behavior. Thank you. Quinnipiac. Socialhe recent surge of media covering trials and events, is there any thought to opening up Supreme Court arguments to the public via media . We are a conservative law in that respect, small c. You say, why are you so conservative . After all, the written press is there, why not television . All,oncerns are, first of it is a symbol of our court. If we let it in, it may be in all criminal cases. That is a problem. People testify where they will be seen by their neighbors, jurors, etc. People willlem is think the oral argument is what it is about. 99 is really briefs. And then another problem. People relate to people they know more than those they do not know. They relate to people they see more than those they read about. There will be a good guy and a bad guy. That is risky for the court because we are deciding things for the 310 Million People who are not in that courtroom. That is the rule of law. And then of course, as i am honest about it, people worry about the demonizing or the angel rising of people you see. We do not know. My own answer to this is experience will build up. I suspect eventually it will be there. It is a question of when. M, hofstra university. Could you speak more about what led to the Supreme Court decision in bush v. Gore . What can i say . There were lengthy opinions. People thought it through and they came to different conclusions. I can add one thing, which i have said quite a lot. Before i came to my own conclusion about it, i had to ask myself this question. What i come out the same way . After all, i was appointed by president clinton and Vice President gore may have had something to do with it. I have met him. I thought, would i decide the same case the same way if everything were the same and the names were reversed . I had to come to the conclusion that i would. When i said this at stanford i added, truthfully, people are great self caterers. You do not always know you have an answer to that question, but you try. I am not sorry the way that i voted, but i am sure that each of my colleagues went through some version of that. And you have to. You do not know that you are always getting that right, the answer to that question, but you know you can try. And you know your colleagues tried. That is the best i can do. Alexis. I am from juniata college. Attorney general Kathleen Kane announced she would not defend pennsylvanias defense of marriage act in the pennsylvania constitution in a court of law eerie because she believed the law was unconstitutional and morally wrong. What is your opinion on that . I can give an opinion on her opinion. Not the i cannot give an opinion to your question because it is an issue that might come in front of us. The reason for that, first, there is an ethical problem with it. Underlying that is something that is really practical. When you have a party and you have your friends expressing opinion, i sometimes do that, too. Then you have to make a decision for real. When you have to make that decision for real, before you do and believe me, there will be a lot of briefs in that case, on both sides, and we read them. It is my life, reading and writing. If you do your homework well, you can do homework the rest of your life. It turns out that what you first expressed as your isktail view party view not what your view is. When the decision israel for anybody, all of a sudden, it makes a difference, and you focus and you think about it hard. That is why i cannot answer your question. Michael arthur, stanford university. In light of recent cases like Citizens United, do you believe the Supreme Court is tending to dispense justice or fairness in the american system . You mean do i agree with Citizens United . I agree with the dissent. It is not such an easy argument as sometimes you might read in the press. I do not want you to believe this argument, but i want you to see what it is. It does say Congress Shall make abridging the freedom of speech. I know you can say Campaign Contributions our money, not speech. But you try to express your views politically without money in a political campaign. May as well lock yourself in a closet. Political speech is protected by the First Amendment, perhaps first and foremost, and you cannot speak without money. But congress does not deprive you of money, just regulates it. Judgeperhaps our greatest said, do not get into the ofiness, talking to judges, trying to tell people when too much money is too much. People will pass laws on that and they will be really protecting themselves and their jobs. It is a risky thing for judges to get into that. My position is we have to do that. As i voted to strike down a campaign law in vermont that limited x editors, i think 100, i said, is that all you can contribute . Now i am in the business. I think there are other arguments on the other side. I think there are important arguments on the other side, such as the need not to give everyone some kind of voice and not to drown out the people who have less money. They have a right, too. The need for people to think that congress is not just responding to money but responding to opinions that the First Amendment is there to protect, i think there are some good arguments on my side, too. But i do not want you to think it is all onesided. My name is ryan navarro from juniata college. What has been the most controversial case at the Supreme Court during your time on the bench . You would know better than me. What do you think . The Second Amendment case was controversial, so was health care, and bush v. Gore. Those are good answers. Those of you out there with cases like that, bring them. We love those cases. Good evening, justice. A pleasure to have you with us. I am from suffolk university. Asr book is widely regarded a direct response to Justice Scalias book. I was wondering how much truth there is to that and moreover, how do you reconcile with someone who you have such a fundamental difference in constitutional interpretation with . On a personal basis, we are friends. Judgesations among the are fine. We have lunch together. I can remember once we had really tough ones in the conference just before lunch. 54 oneway way, 54 the other way. I said to chief justice rehnquist, we are having lunch, enjoy each others companys, and 45 minutes ago he said yes, you had four members of the core thinking the five others were out of their mind. The discussions and conferences are professional. I have never heard a voice raised in anger in that conference. You go around the table. It is a good point for people, what ever you are in. You start getting emotional about something, and you discredit your argument. Particularly for lawyers. Be careful. Are tryingpoint, you to get across a point of view or a set of arguments to see how people react. Calm helps. What about the book . I did not write it necessarily to be a response. I wrote that particular book probably i had to give some lectures. The real point is, i read this essay by a french thinker. He made this distinction which i have always read. Isaiah berlin made a distinction between positive and negative liberties. In the contextat and said that positive liberty was a bad thing. Rousseau had that idea, that it led to fascism. Onstante said the greek idea of dividing sovereign power among the people who were not women or slaves then but the citizens of athens shared a sovereign power. They would decide together how the country should be conducted. That basic idea of democracy is what he calls positive liberty. Negative liberty is simply freedom from the state telling you what to do. Both have desirable aspects. Ithought a whole lot of what do in the court, and the notion of positive liberty is helpful because it suggests a need for participation, that the government is you. It is not us versus them. Where did that idea come from . In my life, in high school, if you grew up in San Francisco in the 1950s, you would have it strong. I think this is a helpful idea. I wanted to explain that idea in that book. My name is kimberly. I go to juniata college. I was wondering how youbased decisions where there is no text or history or tradition . There is going to be a text. What you see as firstyear law students, in the statutory, we consider regulations, federal statutes, and the constitution, so there will be some text. Very hard to think of a case where there is no text. Is, i tend to do more say, there are some words here. Somebody wrote them. If they come out of congress, the person who wrote those words had some kind of view, even if you never spoke to the senator, that it would not displease the senator. That he works for. The person who wrote this had some idea. It did not spring from nowhere. What was that idea, what were they trying to do with those words, what was the purpose, will this interpretation, as opposed to that, will it further that purpose or will it hinder the purpose . Those are not always determinative, but they are usually helpful. Good evening. I attend suffolk university. Thank you for taking time to speak to us today. Wondering, do you believe Citizens United will be overturned sometime in the future . Who knows. The tendency is rarely to overturn an earlier case. Citizens united, you see, is itself ishe case about corporations and labor independently spending their money without coordination of a candidate in the last few months of a campaign to buy time on television that seem to be for or against a candidate. Now, wealthy people, very wealthy people, billionaires, from both parties, can do that anyway, and they do. There is no not no law that forbids a wealthy person from doing it. The real question in the case is, it in a world where wealthy individuals can do this, could labor unions and corporations also do this . I thought the answer to that question is no. Congress has the power to regulate that. Five people thought it was yes. But note how i framed the question. Sort of a narrow issue, isnt it . You see, im trying to show you something. Thank you. Good evening. I am from the harvard extension school. I am sure you would already agree, but in a country that has enforced legal segregation and slavery, purpose and consequence as a extensive history to prove they should carry the most weight. If you can disclose, is there discord between the judges about what should be valued more, and in terms of hierarchy importance the six pillars you had mentioned in terms of making a decision. Not too much. Have onscalia and i several occasions spoken to audiences together. We spoke to a large student audience in lubbock, texas. It is always interesting to me. I hope it is interesting to him