Utah. You for retaken parts of the day so what the heck . Grabbed a friend. My did little homework Salt Lake County clerk 2001 south state street solid city monday to friday 8 a. M. Through 5 00 p. M. If you are up for a walk in is 2. 2 miles from right here. Walked out the door. Go vote. Cast your vote. Bringing neighbor and a friend. Truthfully. When the curtain closes. So tell somebody. And then another 12 have. And then after four years. [cheers and applause] but go tell somebody. But it is almost two 10 their sins restarted the campaign. Like your Favorite Team is out there on the road with a hometown crowd. The leaders still seeing tremendous momentum. To see hearts and minds every day that American People are talking to each other and with the election is really about. Go to somebody. The bottom line is this change versus the status quo. If you like your status quo you can keep it she will keep the promise. Desoto a neighbor and friend. So back in the Hoosier State prison the dimes worth of difference that never happens in in utah sometimes you vote the doesnt matter but this is not such a time. From where i stand this isnt even the decision of left or right to or republican democrats. This is a choice between up and down. Party with me . The three going to continue to go down the hill to a weaker america at home and abroad to stifle our e economy working for their way the first constitutional ideals or are we going to stop implanting murphy to a turnaround and march back up the hill to a stronger america and a more prosperous america for our children and grandchildren . [applause] go tell somebody. Again to tell the fellow republicans. Would you please . It really is remarkable. Those other tired of gridlock or washington dc or paid to play corruptions. Tired of the avalanche of liberal policies. To chase jobs out of the country now it is time to reach out to fellow republicans. To say with one voice it is time to come home. [cheers and applause] to tell you republican neighbors and friends it isnt time to make a statement but to make a difference. [cheers and applause] there are only two names on the ballot. And while eloise respect any man or woman in the manner that they seem best i truly do believe of vote for any candidate other than donald trump is a vote for a weaker america any other than donald trump is a vote for an america that continues to walk away from our highest ideals and our constitution and a vote for any candidate other than donald trombone to make Hillary Clinton the 45th president of the United States it is time to come home this time for republicans to come home come home to the Trump Pence Team to the report republican majorities in the house and in the senate and it is time to come home that make sure Hillary Clinton is never elected president of United States of america. [cheers and applause] payasyougo from here i want you to vote in a vote early and bring a friend go tell somebody spread the word tell them what this election is about especially reach out to our republican friends. Leslie last, have faith in the American People. Have faith in the capacity of the American People to set things right. The truth of the matter is a different times throughout our nations history we have much more challenging days we have to do what it donald trump said in his gettysburg speech rise above the noise and clatter to embrace the great faith and optimism central to the American People. So go with confidence. So many do we do from time to time. In the next hole and a half. I am not so much with 13 for our cause that would encourage you in these divided times of our country with these threats with Economic Uncertainty at home , more division in our country than any time that i can remember, it is a good time to pray for our country [applause] i would rather concern myself if we are on gods side. Then rather if he is on hours. As you do i truly do believe it is still true today for those that were called by his name to pray. In the challenging times. And will heal our land. One nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [cheers and applause] [chanting] men and women of utah we have 12 and half days to rendezvous with destiny. This is a moment of decision and i have to tell you to layout the choice challenging you to go out and reach out to bring utah home will make you the promise that may and is ready. This team is ready. This movement is ready. If you go out to make sure that you taught is ready we will elect donald trump as a 45th president of the United States of america and we will make America Great again. Lets go get it done. Bring it home to 20. God bless. [cheers and applause]. Double. We leave utah in the event with mike pence to take you live back to washington, dc. We are at the Heritage Foundation for remarks tonight by Supreme CourtJustice Clarence thomas. Three didnt just three days after the 25th anniversary of his swearingin as an associate justice on the u. S. Supreme court. That is hosted by former attorney general edneys with the Heritage Foundation. This is live coverage. [applause] good evening, thank you everyone. Im john, director of the seminars that heritage and also the mic check for this evening. Before the the Great American standing next to me opens our program we would ask everyone if you be so kind to check that your mobile device is silent are turned off. That is always appreciated. We are pleased you could join us this evening and the great gentleman standing next to me for whom our ad would neese center for legal and judicial studies is named. Served in the Ronald Reagan administration and was the 75th attorney general of the United States. Please welcome ed neese. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you john and thank you ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure for me to join john and welcome you to the Heritage Foundation. To welcome you to the joseph story distinguished lecture. This is one of heritage most prestigious events of the year. We are happy to sponsor this evening, particularly particularly because of the guest i will introduce. The joseph story lecture has traditionally been held in conjunction with two other important events of our center for legal and judicial studies. One is the legal strategy form. In the audience tonight we have nearly 50 ceos and from law firms over this nation. Where happy to have them with us on this occasion. The other event is a series we started some years ago, called the preserve the constitution series. This is one of several of these type of events which various aspects and issues of the constitution of the rule of law are discussed by experts. So the joseph story lecture fits right into that pattern where we discuss the importance of constitutional fidelity in the rule of law. Of course this lecture has been named in honor of one of our countries foremost judicial and legal scholars. The man who distinguished himself in so many different ways. Joseph story was involved in politics and civic activities in his native state of massachusetts. He was a scholar, he taught while the justice of the Supreme Court i was a member of that faculty starting in what i suspect was a patter that has been imitated by many justices since that time, including our guest this evening. He held various offices in his hometown and in that area. Also served in the house of representatives, representing his district in massachusetts. He was appointed to the United StatesSupreme Court by janes medicine in 1812. He served until 1845 when he passed away at the age of 65. What makes them particularly noted as far as we are concerned was his commitment to the constitution of the United States as it was written. He was a true defender of that document, our foremost charter and believe that being faithful to the text of the constitution and how it was understood to mean by those who wrote it and ratified it, as well as the amendments in subsequent years was the only way in which a judge or justice could interpret that document has they would any other legal document. So it was that commitment to the constitution that led him to write one of the foremost commentaries on the constitution of any author in the history of the country. It was indeed his stories, and commentary still used to understand the way in which it should be interpreted by the Legal Profession and by the judges and of course the members of the Supreme Court. It is appropriate then that the story lecture feature tonight our particular guests. Clarence thomas is a unique individual also, that is, for one thing he served in all three branches of our federal government. He worked in the Senate Office of senator Jack Danforth of missouri. He worked in the Reagan Administration in two capacities. He was First Assistant secretary of education for civil rights and then chairman of the equal Employment Opportunity commission. Then he was appointed initially by George Hw Bush as a judge of the United States court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. And then ultimately as an associate justice of the United StatesSupreme Court in 1991. We mentioned as were discussing before we came in tonight that last sunday was his 25th anniversary as a member of the court. [applause] i cannot introduce clarence without also mentioning his lovely wife, jenny who is with us tonight. She. She has been a great helpmate of hers as he would be the first to tell you she herself has a distinguished career in the city and in our country. Both in civic activities, and think tanks, as well as in tv. We are pleased to have you with us also, jenny. [applause] when i say it is appropriate that Clarence Thomas be our joseph story lecture tonight, it is because of his lifelong and particularly judicial time of dedication to the constitution of the United States. He, in my mind is one of the clearest writers that we have ever had on the u. S. Supreme courts. His clear writing has made it clear, if you will, that the constitution is written should be interpreted according to those who wrote it and ratified it. That has been an important part of presenting the ideas that Ronald Reagan had when he first appointed him to have position in the executive branch and what president bush had in mind when he appointed him to two judicial positions. That is the fact that we need judges who will be faithful to the rule of law and to the constitution itself. If we are going to preserve selfgovernment and liberty for the people of this country. At no time in my history in my opinion, has this been more important to than it is at the present time. That is why were so honored to have him as our guest tonight. Randy. Randy barnett who i see here tonight, the constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law Center called judge and now Justice Thomas of fearless originalists. He enters the constitution as it was written. He went on to say that he elevates the original meaning of the text above precedence. In other words, he puts the founders above the dead justices. [laughter] [applause] i might add he puts them above live justices as well. [laughter] i think the best test of anyone appointed to any court is how the person who appointed him feels about it. That that is why think we should all be interested to know that president bush, talking about him said this about him and how proud he was of this election. He said, while Justice Thomas is known both for his consistently sober demeanor on the bench, and his thoughtful and respectful jurisprudence. He is also widely admired for his warmth among his colleagues, law clerks, the court staff. He wound up by saying he is a very good man. That is why i am so pleased to introduce to you tonight that good man, Clarence Thomas. [applause] joining him tonight in this discussion is the director of the center for legal and judicial studies, john malcolm who has a distinguished career himself in long, and government, and now as the director of the center here at the Heritage Foundation. John, i will turn it over to. Please welcome john malcolm. [applause] doctor thomas, it is a real pleasure to be here on the stage with you. Congratulation on being on the court for 25 years. Id like to begin our conversation with perhaps some reflections on those 25 years. What surprised you the most about your time on the court. Well, first of all can you all hear me . Because im having trouble hearing myself. I would like to thank general nice for the introduction. I think i have met joe in december 1980, and i considered a distinct honor to serve in the Reagan Administration and to have known you now for 35 years. And that holds true also i just think that i remember when youre being criticized heavily and that is an understatement in the city, your demeanor, your pleasant demeanor never change. Your positive attitude, your willingness to talk to young people and persuade them to your ideas but not returning it with fire with fire. That is as much to commend itself and much to admire. So thank you, not only for the years together but for your example. [applause] i would also like to thank heritage and all of this senator and all who are involved in this evening. Of course my wife and i made lots of trips here when she was working here and we just loved being around her. I dont spend a lot of time thinking back over the time, were too busy doing our work. I am not it naval gays are. We have enough of those in the society. Over the last two years we have some things that happen that the court, certainly last year that change the way that we worked. We have to be focused on that. Now, maybe this will be some of the things youre thinking of talking about, but if i reflect back over the years some of the things i enjoyed most with my law clerks, they make it fun, its the energy, the first year was really tough, i dont know how we survived that. But i see those clerks today and the affection that you have with them is tremendous because they were there at the beginning when we do not have systems, we didnt have computers, when we had four cases per day. But through the years, i think i have to say the consistency, the effort to have a consistent judicial philosophy when you cannot try to explain why you have changed, i think you are that to people. Try to make the work understandable, to make it make sense, and when it doesnt make sense to try to point out why it doesnt make sense. Something like the dormant commerce clause, like a hibernating bear something. [laughter] and if you cannot explain it, you should at least tell people why you cant. [laughter] if it doesnt make sense, as my grand day used to say it dont make sense that dont make sense. But we try to make it accessible. One of the fun times for me, and things that are not like in the city that i think people really enjoy themselves, dont know we were on one of our road trips with my law clerks and this gentleman comes up to me and he is excited, he runs up wearing gettysburg and he runs up and hes really perspiring in its june. And hes running and he runs me down. He has this fake with an opinion on. I need you to sign this. Im glad i caught up with you. And i said what is this . He said it is your Federal Maritime Commission opinion. [laughter] and i said why are you here with that . He said that is what this is all about. [laughter] but he said, i want to thank you because i can understand what you are saying. He set i read all of your opinions because i can understand them. I think were obligated to make the constitution and what we write about the constitution accessible to our fellow citizens. That empowers people by giving them the sense of the constitution is really theres a not to be accessible. Well, it is there and i think we had it from them when we write in language that is inaccessible. If you think about it, had a buddy of mine who is a wonderful, wonderful son who is quadriplegic. I remember before you head curb cuts, a curb that high, two or t wall of china. That part of the city were building was that it on accessible to him. I think sometimes we make something that should be accessible. Today of course we have made the curbs flush with the street. So it is accessible. While. While we can kind of do that with language to, one of the things i tell my law clerks is that genius is putting a 2dollar idea in a 20dollar sentence. As putting a 20dollar idea in the 2 said toots. Without any loss loss of meaning. But that takes work. It takes organization, and editing, etc. But i think the citizens, we went to people to present to the their constitution in a their constitution in a way that they can understand, to enfranchise them constitutionally. You take your clerks to gettysburg and i was curious about that. Why do you do that . I wonder what some of the experiences or reactions were when you have done that. They are polite. [laughter] actually is going to stop doing it and there some resistance to continuing the trip. I really enjoy it, i read battle cry. I think understand the 14th amendment in particular in the postcivil war civil war era, you have to understand the civil war first. You have to understand our history. That started actually when i was at eeoc. Eeoc. I wanted to understand the founding better. I hired a couple of guys from claremont, john and kim, and i wasnt planning on being a judge. I just wanted to understand our founding. Part of that you read the civil war history, the Lincoln Douglas debates, all sorts of things. I thought it would be important for my clerks to go, not just talk about the 14th amendment, not just not just talk about the equal protection clause are not just talk about the due process, but to go and feel it, to see the place and see why, what was this about, why do people die to go where lincoln delivered the gettysburg address, where he implores us to the living, to make it worthwhile. There is an experiment that some of these people give it the last full measure. Also it is the end of the term. At the end of the term you can be a little bit upset and people can become, these kids can see how the sausage is made and become a little bit cynical or a little bit jaded. I was thought it was a great idea to go and have them see it wasnt about winning an argument. It wasnt about a subject, it wasnt about its about us in our country. To encourage them to remain hopeful despite what they have seen, to remain idealists despite what they have seen and what is happening. In these jobs, a lot of negativity comes in. But thats a lesson that i learned from general niece, you somehow keep it together and you present, you say the, i know him experience, ive seen how sausage is made but this idea, this is all we have left is this wonderful ideal of what the perfectibility of this great republic. So that is basically the reason. Plus, its kind of fun. Any can contemplate i suppose about how the country would have gone in a completely different direction. Well if we had one that wouldve been a problem. [laughter] more of a problem for me than you. [laughter] probably so. [laughter] lets stick with the reflections on the last hundred years. Perhaps you mention mention your maritime opinion. Opinions you have written over the years, are a member the time i read an opinion of yours that just captured me. It was in 1999 opinion, it was city of chicago versus mireles in which the court struck down an anti gang ordinance. You wrote this passionate dissent about saying for the suppose it right to loiter of the 2 your contender mean 90 of the residents. That just hit me and stuck with me. Im curious, what opinions over the course of your career have stuck with you. Have been to what you been most proud of. I dont know. I think theyre ones that there are different types of opinions. I dont really see them as trophies. I dont think about them when im done. I think about, therell opinions that i think about are usually ones that are really hard, the opinion, really i agonized agonized over and then agonized throughout the summer on, again she had lost her car, the government government took her car and the husband was visiting that really bothered me a lot. The cases like the haitian refugees. Cases where your heart goes one way but you have got to stick with the law. Those are really hard opinions. I think those of the are the ones you think a lot about. Once where in those are ones where your hair begins to fall out but the one you mentioned, morale us, the thing that concern me is that sometimes we write these opinions or the Court Decides cases in that case, that was about keeping gangs off the street so that poor, innercity people could walked on the street, little kids could go to school. I lived in the inner city. You imprison people if they are not capable of using wethers Public Transportation or public streets. Sometimes, because we dont have a sense of that neighborhood we dont really point out that side of the equation. So that was just a paragraph or so in the opinion, but i was just making that point at the end when you went through the analysis. But i dont really go back and look at specific opinions, i look at things that i need to do more work on, i look at opinions for example if i have to sometimes i have to prepare a month about it because people talk a lot about it and you dont have time during the term to read thousands of pages on it. The ones that im not sure the ones that i agonize over and spend more time in the summer. D spend more time agonizing over the opinions which youre trying to commence a majority . And how do you work better in terms of moderating your position if you do in order to try to bring more of your fellow justices to join an opinion of yours . I dont have a problem writing majority opinions. I rarely have problems with that. You are an agent for the majority when youre writing for the majority. One of the things that you learn in the court and at the Court Overtime is that Everybody Knows everybody. If youre honest, when youre writing for the majority you really dont have a problem. So i really have really have never had a problem with that. Any number of opinions that start out fractured, 5 5 44 4 1, thats not a problem. But you agonize over if its a technical opinion. You take Something Like whether or not you can patent the Breast Cancer gene. Yes, thats technical. So that is difficult. But its difficult in the different way than say that haitian refugee camp case. But i dont agonize up for it. I dont sail sail my gosh how did i get this on. But there are opinions that you might be complicated but you dont lose a lot of Emotional Energy over taxes. Well when you look at constitutional cases and youre trying to get some of your fellow justices to join your opinion and see things your way. I dont spend a lot of time on that. [laughter] so you express your view on whether others joined you on that. I will write a little more narrowly, a little more crisp to figure someone doesnt want to go quite as far. But you dont change the principle, you might for example you may compromise and not go as far for the whole court, you do that sometimes. But you dont change your underlying viewer principle. I never do that. I do that. I havent done that in 25 years. It does it mean that i dont make a mistake. But i dont believe in doing that. When you write separately i try to be thoughtful. If you go back and take a look when i wrote separately in the mcdonnell case, i would love to have been the majority there. I still believe that we should not ignore the privileges or immunities clause. We spent an enormous amount of time explaining the history of the immunity clause and what is included. Im not saying that i had it perfectly or anything like that, but we did a tunnel work on it. You dont just throw it out. We did it a few years ago we did three opinions in the Administrative Law area which i think is very important. That was quite a haul because you are trying to show the implications of what we have been doing. It took a lot of extra work. Simply simply because i think you only two people that when you break new ground you have to explain things more thoroughly and more in depth. Certainly with respect to mcdonald, we can can talk more about privileges and immunities in a little bit and with administrative lot decisions, both decisions you have been quite out front and quite bold. One thing that i know that is on the mind of everybody in here is still absorbing the impact of the passing of Justice Scalia last february. Could you share some fun remembrances of your time with him on or off the court. I did not know just a school you before i got to the court. I have not met him. I had one law clerk, my first law clerk and he snuck me in the chambers when he was in one time and that was really the most expensive time i have been at the court before i became a member of the court. But when i got to the court, Justice Scalia justice glia made it a point, he has a reputation of being a tough, unfairly treated as being aggressive in some ways. I never found found that side. We might disagree on something but it was always very warm and very cordial. Also he was enormously respectful. From the first days to the last days. Our relationship was that one, i did go to the Kennedy Center to go see operas. I used to kid him about and said i like opera i just dont want to be around people who like opera. [laughter] here is that that is really funny. [laughter] he eyes thought it was really odd that i was from the south and would not go hunting. And i thought it it was really odd that he was from new york and new jersey and he went hunting. But he would try to talk me into it and i said there is no good comes from being in the woods. [laughter] but it was absolutely delightful. I would go into his office and most the time it was just laughing. Sometimes he would be a little down and i would try to boost him up, boost them a little bit and get it going. Whatever the funny things towards the end was that we are on opposite sides, he was he was pretty aggressive with that Fourth Amendment. But we were on opposite sides again in a Fourth Amendment case. I think it was an anonymous tip about a drunk driver and i forget which one, and mightve been the dna case, cant remember. But his opinion and dissent he said that this is a liberty destroying cocktail. And i said that is a good line. So you think my opinion is a liberty destroying cocktail. Yes. Laughmacs at the end of the term we went to lunch. It was the last lunch we went to two chambers. He was there there and he is ordering and hes trying to figure out what kind of cocktail do i have before lunch. And and how about a liberty destroyer. [laughter] he thought that was hilarious. But one of my favorites was he was a constitutional law expert and i think he mustve thought i was a wrecking ball or something. He loved constitutional and the minister divorce. So were sitting on the bench one day and i would always say this because he leans over to me and he says clearance, our, is one of the worst opinions in the history of this country. And i leaned over and i said nino, yes. You wrote it. [laughter] it he remember what he had done. But i trusted him. And and we trusted each other. Even when we disagree. If i told him i did not agree with you if he was on the other side in he would call me up and he had a concern, i trusted him. I did not have to look for work he was. I did not have to talk. We almost never almost never talked about cases before we voted. It was very rare. But we did almost invariably, for slightly different reasons, and up on the same side. He just always thought it was hilarious. He said how did you wind up in the same position. Youre from there and on from here. You came from a barely literate family. His family. His father was like a romance literature professor. For some reason, he was from the north, as from the south, but we, but we wound up at the same place. I can honestly tell you that i miss them. At one of the points i remember he made in the dissent and perhaps it was a burger fell, where he said if are going to make prophecy in the court but if you going about the task of being a judge in interpreting the law in a consistent way that regional variation should it matter. He tried very hard, in my opinion, to always be open to disagreements, concerns. He always cared about the big things, the principles, the small things like syntax and vocabulary, punctuation. I would go by to see him and he would have his rack of books there and his opinion and going through, he did the small and he did the big. He cared about it all. And that teaches you a lesson. It all matters. So after he passed away of course it was horrible in every way. Normally left the bench right after him and his office and chambers were not to mine so i would be a few steps behind them because i left later and well catch up and talk a bit and usually it was about nothing. On the first day he was gone i caught myself coming off the bench taking a quick step to try to catch him and that sort of was the pregnant example of someone who is missing. That he is not there. Theres nobody to catch up to. But he was, for me a fungi. Wed often just go in and it was not about cases, is just about talk. Sometimes if one of his clerks told me he was down a little bit i would go and we would laugh and then you would leave and hopefully felt a little bit better. Your respect and admiration for each other was mutual. In light of the current vacancy, one of these days were going to have another confirmation hearing. There are a lot of people who of course believe the confirmation process is broken. Your confirmation be in one example of that. Im curious, your thoughts on whether there is any hope to improve the confirmation process. You know, theres always hope. But the city is broken in some ways. I have been here most of my life now. I think we have become very comfortable with that thinking things through and debating things. That is one thing i love about the court. You can actually can actually talk to people about things. I think we have decided that rather than the confront the disagreements and differences of opinion, well just just simply annihilate the person who disagrees with us. I dont think that will work. I dont think it will work in a republic, or civil society. At some point we have got to recognize that we are destroying our institutions and undermining our institutions. Were going to destroy them, but the day is going to come if it is not already hear the when we need the institution. And the integrity of the institution. So even when you disagree with people and you notice some opinions i do not attack personally my colleagues, i disagree with them, but i think it is important to lead them standing and leave the institution standing. Had to sharply have the contrast in the points of view. But i dont think that is going to change in the city until we get back to we decide things based on logic, facts, and reason as opposed to who yells the loudest or who has the best narrative are the best mean, or some other nonsense. Let me build on that. There are a lot of people in this country who believe that the presidency and congress is irretrievably broken. They lost confidence. Theres a lot of people who lost confidence in courts, including your cord and court and view it as just another political branch. What you say to people who believe that . I probably say say more, what you have to gain their confidence. I dont think people oh us or are confident. I think its something we earn. The try to do a job in the way that you have confidence in what you do. You try to do the hard things, but they should not be doing, in a way that they can have confidence. That you can trust. Perhaps perhaps we should ask ourselves why what we have done to not earn it or to earn it and im not so sure i have all the answers to that. But one of the things i tell my clerks is simply you simply try to live up to the oath that you took. You took an oath to show fidelity of the constitution and you live up to it. You took an oath to judge people impartially, you live up to it. In the city that doesnt go for much. You take heat for, or whatever. That is part of the job. You are supposed to do your job. So hopefully someone will run up to you one day and youll have a lot of confidence. This is what this is all about. That does not sell michael hole up. No one cares. Probably most people do not care about it. But it does mean something to you when an average citizen has confidence that you did your job fairly and right, as best you could. You didnt say you agreed with me. He said that you can understand. And he accepted it because of that. Is certainly you and justice glia and your colleagues when they have issued an opinion have been called out for that. Do you hope to ring that in or perhaps your colleagues overtime will be persuaded . What you hope to gain by putting that out . I dont know. I think if think if youre going to do due process you run the risk of broad policy decisions. What Justice Scalia was saying is that you have to have rules, you have to do some work. Nobodys really that interested. Thats part of the reason why i dissent into the commercial speech case and in the hudson. Its a multi factor, four factor test that takes you where you want to go. That is not much of a test. I think Justice Scalia understood whether it was a lemon test or another test that we have got to have something with more teeth to it, more grip to it than that sort of a test. Thats a problem with due process. These lever room for you to come out as a policy preference. So i dont know whether people are totally political in the sense of the politics of the city, but the jurisprudence allows for. It allows for the criticism. We took criticism in bush versus gore or Something Like that. People could easily throw out and casted dispersions about a particular opinion here there. I think what what you try to do is to your job in a way where you know that you have applied the law in a fair way. Some years ago a court that i really enjoyed being on was a composition that was together for over 11 years with justice oconnor, and stevens. We were together long time. One of the things that one of my colleagues with whom i rarely agreed thomas said clearance your consistent. I think that is, whether it space bar, a referee in basketball, you want it called the same way. And you can live with that. Like the maritime guy. Guy. He wasnt necessarily paid you a compliment. Agreed with you. So i want to talk a little bit about certain positions. Before i do that i want to give a broader view. You said the constitution is not a standalone document. It can really only be understood in combination with the declaration of independence. Can you elaborate on that . My point was that we have to understand why this, this is the question is trying to answer. Why this government. Why this republic . Why not something else. Why not do it the french day. So i have to start with the declaration. The government by consent and on alienable rights, what were we protecting with the structure of our constitution. I think when you look at the constitution which is the positive document with the declaration, you understand why this republic. Why a separation of power so important. Why is federalism so important. Why are enumerated power so important. Why is the written constitution, why is it so important . Because you gave up some of your rights in order to be governed, not all of them. It is that limitation and protection on liberty. I read a lot of Justice Scalias separation of powers. They all come back to one theme, protecting individual liberty. It wasnt just to have separation of powers, it wasnt just to have federalism, it wasnt just to have it was, in order you had these in order to protect liberty. But but where does that start . It starts in the declaration. So people talk about the bill of rights as if that is the cake, as opposed to these are ten amendments and the actual documents that we, the the people would consent to be governed by this. Of those structural protections are what really gave us liberty. It is really interesting. I did not fully understand that and so sitting at the elc in the 1980s with canon and john, certainly didnt get it from law school. The amendments were a big deal in law school. We did not even read the constitution. But i think the structure is so important. Perhaps that is where the constitutional issues perhaps that is where justice schooley and i saw eye to eye from the very beginning. The critical importance of the structure. The other thing was that the text, this is a written constitution. This is it common law. Like were going to make it up as we go along. It is a written document. You you have written amendments which are really important. So i think that the structure is important, the most important part of it, the the limitations built into that structure critically important. And that is why you see for example and i dont write extensively on the law. Look at what youre doing your reverse trend reversal rating the relationship with what the constitution can do. Then you go from regulating commerce to the economic effects or the effects on commerce. That is a quite different test then regulating commerce. You just talked on revisiting the past and ill get to that in the moment. You talk a little bit about privileges and immunities and made statements about to process. When you look at different causes in terms of protecting personal liberties, economic liberties, what causes you to gravitate, what other petitions . Whatever is in the constitution. It is all there. The third amendment is there that we skip over the second amendment. We want to pretend that doesnt exist. The First Amendment has make no law it with the establishment of religion. What is the establishment of religion . It doesnt have like a wall of separation. It says establishment of religion. So you go back to the language. What is what is it mean . And were obligated to do that. Were obligated, or peoples theories, think judge brown gave a lecture on the theories. They can go on a totally different direction from the limitations built into the constitution itself. That is great. You talk about limited, and numerator powers for government, the protections, you mentioned how the cause has been ignored even though its right there. So, lets talk about your view on [inaudible] for more willing than some of your colleagues to revisit past, and this isnt unique. Sometimes the court has when it has been deemed appropriate they have revisited preferences. But im curious to hear your views on these decisives and the constitutional questions. How would you respond to your critics about this . I just criticism i dont thats thats why its hard. I Read Everything i could get my hands on. The theory is all over the place. Goldberg theory was basically its basically a ratchet. You improve civil liberties, those strict rules apply when you win those cases. But when they need to overrule cases in order to do what they think is the right thing, then were going to lose that. Then you get brandeis, brandeis, he has his rules. But he overrules which was a 96yearold president. Then what you do, when you get brown, so he has lots of precedents out there. Are you have Justice Brandon redoing the political question doctrine. And baker versus car. Im not saying he overruled but it didnt look like what it used to look like. But the point is, they change a lot of things and when they get what they want then they start yelling. As if that is supposed to stop you. Its like bogeyman or something. I think the constitution itself, the written document is the ultimate star a decisive. [applause] caleb nelson has a nice piece, nothing is toilet totally right, but he makes a point. If you have a choice between two, the statute allows you to choose between amb and on a clean slate you choose be, then you get that starry decisive. But if the court has chosen see when the statute gave you a and b, then that is clearly erroneous. Everybody thinks that does not deserve starry decisive. Now with due process get people sang constantly, i think that what we have done, that lets say the slaughterhouse caisson that it is wrongly decided. Will my point of mcdonald is not i have the answer. Answer. I didnt say that. I said if everybody agrees is wrongly decided then why are we applying it . [laughter] its as simple as that. I think we have to do more thans about. We have to say we are not applying for these reasons. Well it leaves you wanting the next donation. Right. I wasnt trying to grandstand. And that goes back well him and i split nation. Even if we cannot the other way you oh him an explanation. We explanation. We all agree, slaughterhouse is wrongly decided. It has had a profound effect on this country. You know it and i know it that when you guarantee citizenship to people the immunities on people and then you redesign the constitution or you trivialize it i said john hear a member, you have all the privileges of this club, then i rewrite the privilege of immunity to mean that you get to ride the elevator once a week and thats it. Thats a heck of a membership. Everybody elses swimming and in the gym, there in the sauna, and i just get to ride the elevator once. Thats the way feel about the immunity clause. If i said you about the battles of gettysburg, have a personal interest in this. I lived under segregation. We talked about all of around these things, this is at the very heart of it. Come back to back to dred scott. Here you have he said no black could be a citizen. For the purpose of diversity and he goes on and on about the other stuff. Now, the 13th, 14th, particularly the 14th amendment, answers the question. It guaranteed that citizenship. And all the privileges of immunity of citizenship. And then we sit here and we read it out of the constitution. Anyway, i guess thats why you get passionate about it. Its the heart and soul. Not just a subject, not just a theory. It is what makes it all work. It is a way to perfect a big blemish on this countrys history. That is a blemish of slavery. A big contradiction. So it really is sort of once you get what you want, its a oneway ratchet. And then it become settled law which ought not to be revisited. If i were on the court of appeals, or the district court, then i have to apply the precedent. I did that for the two minutes i was on the d. C. Court. [laughter] i would do that. I would faithfully do that. But we are we are at a different place. I believe we are obligated to think things through. To reexamine ourselves, go back over turf already plowed to think it through and to torment yourself to make sure you are right. You made reference that you would have four cases to hear a day, you would hear hundred 40, hundred 50 cases, now you hear about 70. Howd it come to be in is that a positive or negative it development . Well i guess its a positive development. If we been wrongly deciding cases is a positive. Everyone comes to court thinking theres more cases to serve and then we wind up doing exactly what we did before. When i got to the court it was about a hundred 20 cases. That was a lot. The the court had been doing 150 at some point. I think around 110 would be good. I dont see any prospects with our discretionary jurisdiction. Also, take this into consideration, other than the healthcare, the Affordable Care act, which seems like a misnomer considering all the things going on. [laughter] the Affordable Care act is, was one of the last pieces of major legislation. One of the few pieces of major legislation. Its not like you have a lot of that were the real action is, the activity and that it occurs in the ministry of agency. So i dont know if there is that much legislation that is actually going on that requires review. When i first got to the court was still had to do Bankruptcy Code so we still had quite a few of those cases. At one point we get a new criminal area and so we had a lot of litigation there. And what were doing criminal law and collateral review, i think you have to get a lot of review in the lower courts on that. Theres not a major legislation. So i dont know what the source of it would be. The other thing is, and i dont know the total impact of this but a lot of the cases are being siphoned off or being diverted to mediation or arbitration. We have a very light review of that under the federal arbitration act. Theyre not coming up like the normal commercial litigation through the federal court system. Its off to the side. I think that might be a cost consideration. You mentioned before that there is very little legislation regardless of whether you like the Affordable Care act or not, no i understand that. Its really bad for the country that it was done in such a one side i totally get that. But one interesting point is obviously that legislation and other bills that passed, when they passed a exactly what you just said. They said here is, im going to empower some agencies to go out and do good basically. Its nebulous direction. The agencies are then effectively performing, a legislative function and edging doing other functions and judicial function, how do you approach those sorts of cases when youre trying to interpret law and figure out where the line is. You made reference to justice clea statement about our, how do you approach those cases differently . I do my job. To be honest with you. I think effect cases where the you take it. If there is a split, there is a big issue, its preserved preserved and you take the case. I dont get into we made out when the server thats not my job. We abdicate our responsibilities. Wheat we are required with checks and balances as part is from the judicial standpoint is to review the case you dont review cases when you say we defer to anything in the agency. We dont do that to district judges and they are article three has the same status with the court of appeals. But we do that through the agency. So as a constitutional matter we are obligated to be more exacting in our review. But we are obligated to do more to say chevron and then be done. Do you read all the amicus briefs . No. [laughter] if you have 30, there are people that our credible the aclu, you may not agree with what they say that is a good grief the u. S. Government you read the brief of state. But some people like law professors. [laughter] that is one off. But they start off as a polemic. There is an extra a neat is brief and with sabre supporting either party they were us explaining the electrical grid i thought this is excellent i did know what the heck a grid was neither did either party. So the engineers actually helped the court labor friends of the court. Now in technical cases youll run across this. With the intellectual property groups of these patent areas and that is a good grief. But for me a brief is thorough and honest if you concede this is honest, you dont agree but then you read it again for those we peeked people if theyre making a good point but if somebody is just a oneoff fuel spend a lot of time. Needy and the maritime of one to olmsted back during those summers you were off on the bus travelling a country. But tell us about that experience the greatest experience how does that help . First of all, it is a wonderful country we fly over most of it. I have never been to eastern tennessee. The thing about segregation with things like Political Correctness with our society it creates fear that you cannot talk to each other. You could not go any place. The fear in georgia was i have to do that with my mother now i wanted to see small towns and now that i can do that without fear, my poor wife she let me doodad and she came along. We have the same bus. Mrs. East tennessee. Where did we see divorces . But we have been to a lot of Different Things we have bent out west we like the mountains but most of all uc the citizens of the country it is very democratic the people are camping out which is really interesting to see [laughter] the first time we went we have a 40foot coach we were next to the of little teardrop at this table and it is really embarrassing. [laughter] but the trucks stop flying j. Right after bush purses for i love the bus i love the diesel the truckers and everybody. Plan would give you two stories. Would you know, it not it was a little controversial. [laughter] you talk about feeling the heat so i had to take my best to florida the week after. [laughter] so i took security with me. [laughter] so why stop did in brunswick georgia to refuel its not like eckhart is professional you have to look around like to know you are doing. And there are 18 wheelers and i am pretending someone say anybody tell you that you look like Clarence Thomas . [laughter] i said to him yes. He said eye that it happens all the time . Sony went on about his business. [laughter] so all these beings have been even the breakdowns are great. We were in in pennsylvania going up the mountains. Says you get to the top of the bus would die so finally we pulled into the truck stop in pennsylvania. There is a little mobile repair they knew how to fix diesel motors and weaver back on the road and they were great theyre great to talk to but it was absolutely wonderful. This is a great country we have done about 40 states we have met a lot of people in a lot of places. Most people dont know who you are correct. Most people dont care. [laughter] and also shows you that it is in the city its not the people who do all the talking but the person encamping of the back who wants to be left alone and was to raise their family if you go to the rv park people waved they went to a chitchat but they are just friendly. I think it is showing be a part of the country you would not normally have seen in georgia or washington d. C. Richard to very different but in their own way their limited. Coming up for a special presentation of those in the audience would remain student when negative seeded but when mark question the National Title for the nebraska cornhuskers . We will be undefeated until we aeronaut. [laughter] we have been treated to a great evening with Justice Thomas. [applause] we have something to present to you first really get one at year end three dont do what every year so the honorable Clarence Thomas when the constitution award congratulations. [applause] what i am about to do should be called the new castle award because i am giving you a set of the commentary for the constitution which you can add to this set that you already have in your office but this is for your column. [laughter] or even better for the bus laugh laugh. Day mind if i share with my colleagues . [laughter] this may be better for the colleagues because it is in the short version of laugh it is called a familiar exposition of the constitution of the United States because i was privileged to write the foreword. [applause] [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] Bobby Kennedys last words were on to chicago the next day he was due to meet with the very powerful mayor Richard Daley his son bill was chief of staff to rock obama tells me there is a 70 percent greater chance his dad would have endorsed Bobby Kennedy for president during that trip to chicago. Had he beat Richard Nixon the right thing she would have america would be a different place some of the issues we are revisiting today with racial tension and International Discord may be different if we tried to redress that six years ago spec joining us from Salt Lake City thanks for being with us. Great to be with you. I will begin with you by the numbers how many states are you on the ballot and how many do you qualify for for their right did vote had you get at to mid70s electoral votes . Guest we will appear on the ballot of 11 states and we will be registered as a writein and a number of others including the balance where we appear between 43 and 45 states on election day. The vast majority of americans can cast a vote for us. But the reality is reaching 270 electoral votes will be very very difficult given the fact we are a three month president ial campaign also with the awaited circumstances but our strategy is different are strategy is to go to as many states as we can and helps that if the election is close between clinton and trump we can block them both also prevent them for