Spreading information work. But theed to wrap up, question is obvious, is it google and facebooks fault and how can we address the problem with fakeness fake news . Yes. [laughter] no, i really second what gary said. I think we are in the business the ratings model is not being fake news for us, right now. That is a big part of what we are doing, the Fact Checking and rigor. I went back and looked at, you know, some of the resident tweets, when he used the term, there was a study about when he used the term fake news. He nearly always uses it when talking about, in the context of reporting on the russia story that a lot of us are following. That is when he uses the phrase, fake news. To me, that is a big part of what we are kind of trying to push against, the notion of to me, it is not is it google or facebook, who is responsible for president pushes fake news. He is an incredible kind of publisher on his own of that. That is something i think as a society we need to grapple with. I think that is what happening is what is happening to all of us now. Beginning forous a conversation on national media. Please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] my great pleasure to introduce our next panel, a treat. And an honor. The future of judicial topic you have a heard about Mark Thompson mentioned, headline in the daily justices being the enemy of the people after they ruled against theresa may in the brexit vote. We have been honored to have judge jeremy fogel to agree. He is a judicial educator, head of the federal judicial center, responsible for continuing judicial education. He has led an incredible series where people have converged to learn them of the future of the administrative state, race in the criminal religiousstem and liberty. He is deeply committed to Judicial Independence. I am so excited he has agreed to share with us. Willll be moderating and interview to of our most this most distinguished appellate judges. Chief judge of the United States court of appeals for the 10th circuit and chief judge of the u. S. Court of sixthor the sick circuit. Restore me in welcoming them. [applause] thank you very much. One thing i have learned working with jeff is i will never match his enthusiasm. [laughter] that doesnt mean i dont feel it, but when you are a judge you learn to modulate those things. [laughter] is really an honor to be here, such a great program. Isope that part of it edifying as much as the first two were cured also a little bit about my colleagues feared they are terrific leaders and judges to they lead very different circuits. Thee kohls circuit is ohio,circuit, michigan, kentucky and tennessee. Think about that format appeared about that for a minute cured he will talk about the challenges of being the chief judge in that circuit and how he has worked to honor the value of discourse in a respectful way. The othernch circuit is the 10th circuit. I have worked with both of these gentlemen a lot. It is not an accident they are here, i am very happy they are here. They were appointed by different president s. Judge cole was appointed by bynton, and tipped in which judge by george w bush. Were going to try and demonstrate is that despite philosophical differences and histories that we all have, we are committed to a common process and set of values. I want to start with judge timken which appeared the 10th circuit, and i want to point out that our latest Supreme Court justices from the 10th circuit. All of the tough issues. They had the hobby lobby case that talked about the role of religious choice in relation to the Affordable Care act. They had samesex marriage, as had circuit. They have had clash of religion and government. Tell us a little bit about how your court has approached these passionately divisive issues. Thank you, i appreciate the opportunity to be here. I used to be introduced as coming from the High Mountain ains wase legalized marijuana. [laughter] they have dropped that. Haveaidback of five may inhibited to the culture of our court. Ofdont have problems factionalism that maybe you see in other parts. Ofve had 200 plus years developing a culture in the judiciary that is based on results and deciding cases respectfully. That is not easy, as was mentioned. We have had some of the most divisive, toughest cases. Yet i have seen my court engage in a way that i would like to think is a model to other branches and institutions, in the way the engagement has been transparent, written product. We have to defend a point of view. I think that is what makes the third branch different. Circuit, we have been blessed with strong leadership over the last 20 years. We have a very collegial reputation which we work hard to create and indoor there are reasons for that. Three of our lust four chief judges have been very social and committed to collegiality. Earned, it takes time and trust. We have great leadership from our chief judges. Three of the four happened to be women, i dont know if that matters, but they were very intent on bringing people together. A lot of that is through systems we can talk about. You mentioned two things, and one is to put the one is to put things in writing. Not just any writing, but legal writing what you are trying to be persuasive of other people. You cannot do that by tweeting. Process. Eliberative collegiality also seems to be a cultural value of the judiciary. Not just a question of people wanting to be nice to each other. It is partly baked into how we see ourselves. Do you think that is true . Judge tymkovich that is true. Ive worked in every branch of the federal and state government. The third branch is very flat. There are only a couple of layers of management. Certainthat fosters esprit de corps, and as you come into our courthouse, the people that work for us we believe in the mission. It is true, a lot of us are active politically before we come onto the bench. But once we shed that put on our put on our roads and we have a chance to work with judges from every perspective, there is a shared purpose about deciding cases in a respectful way. It doesnt mean you agree about these, you could have divided decisions and fairly vigorous dissent. But it is not personal. Judge tymkovich the hobby lobby case, for example, was a 63 case on our court. There were strong positions on both sides. The dissent was about the law and reasoning come not about personalities. It is sometimes very tempting to write an extra word or adjective. Judge fogel maybe in the draft opinion. [laughter] judge fogel i always told my clerks, we have a no snark rule, but not in the draft. Get it out then. [laughter] judge fogel the sixth circuit has also had some difficult cases. Sixth was at odds with other courts other circuits. They have had a tremendous amount of capital litigation because of ohio being an active Death Penalty state. These are things that divide people. I actually would like to start nottions of you in a as positive a place. Back in the 1990s, the Supreme Court decided the affirmative action cases coming out of the university of michigan, there was some fairly significant division that occurred in the sixth circuit to the point where judges were not speaking to each other and things were quite bad. When you became chief, there was still some fallout from that. Im really interested in how you have approached it in the time you have been chief judge. Judge cole thank you, i would like to thank the center and jeff rosen as well having us. I became chief judge about three years ago. Role, i havemy new been on the court about 18 years at that point, as one of setting the tone for the circuit. The Courts Mission essentially is to decide cases based on the constitution, upon statute, upon precedent, upon the record before us. One case at a time. Was to meet that goal. I felt that we needed to do as good a job as possible as a circuit to make sure the public had faith in our work and that we were functioning impartially, influence, andn so, i decided that the first thing i needed to do was meet with the former chief judges. I met with my predecessors, who were extremely supportive, very good chief judges in my view. They have been very supportive ever since. That helped a great deal. Goal was to meet with each and every judge on the circuit, because i wanted to make sure that we had an atmosphere where we could have reasonable discourse. I heard earlier speakers talk about that. I thought the way to get to that was for me to hear from the judges in terms of their concerns, their complaints, any criticisms they might have, i invited any thoughts they might have about my leadership or the circuit overall, and i have continued to solicit their input. I think that helped a lot. The fact that i went in and met with every one of my colleagues. There were several colleagues that have strong opinions. Hard to believe that judges would have strong opinions about one thing or another, but they have very strong opinions and they wanted to be heard. Inhink it is very important the courts and other aspects of society that we listen to one another. It sounds so simple but it is difficult. You talk about the affirmative action cases, those are cases that judges have very strong views. They are important cases, and we have passionate views about how we interpret the constitution and statutes, how we interpret the rule of law. The goal, in my view is to be able to have confidential discussions about these cases following oral arguments where every view is valued. My opinion about a case is no better or worse than any other judges do. Judges view. That was my goal. We have a large court. We have 16 active judgeships and another nine senior judges. That is a lot of peoples views to be accommodated. It was helpful to me and i think helpful to the Court Overall for me to meet with them and set the tone for an atmosphere where everyones you would be respected. Judge fogel there are two things in the jump out at me. One is that you intentionally, as the leader of the court, made this an important value. That it was important to you and you let people know it was important to you. And you took the time to make that a personal thing, that it was part of your relationship with your colleagues. The chief judges dont have any more power. , butare first among peers if you ever ask an article threejudge to do anything, good luck. It is really hard. You have to do it by persuasion. Part of what you said that i think is important is that you made an intentional effort. It also appealed to something that apparently everybody was ready to buy into, which is that this course is part of the way we do things. As the judge just said, i think all judges want to get the issues right. We want to come to the right decision. We have different views on what that decision is, or the pathway to get us there. The important thing is the judges are able to have an open discussion where they can develop trust in one another, that the other judges are listening. And they are paying attention and giving some degree of nions. Macy to others opi judge fogel you have to hide what you feel or fear you will get personally attacked you take that is different. Judge cole and you dont have to agree. More often than not, there are havers on which you disagreements, but you hope it will be principled disagreement and principled agreement. That is what i think is very important. Judge fogel im going to try and ask this question without implying any political view of my own. Ae chief justice just made statement couple of days ago, he gave it the about judicial selection and he was commenting on the recent Supreme Court confirmation process. What he was saying was he worries that the way that process is presented to people makes it look like it is all a political fight. It is just like every other political fight that we have appeared that we have. And sometimes maybe it is, if you are looking at from a congressional view or interest groups. The concern he had is that the court internally do not work that way, and somehow it was giving and inaccurate impression about how courts actually go about processing the work we do. What do you think about that . Judge tymkovich i wish people had the plants the chance to be a fly on the wall after we hear oral arguments. Have 12 judges on our court, but in important cases, we got together as an en banc court. Theee the nature of discussion, the level of preparation and respect each judge has for another judge, i think it would be in example to other branches and institutions about how we do business. We dont decide issues alone. We have to persuade at least one other judge or seven other judges if we are en banc. Life tenure means a lot of us will be together for a long time. Having said that, our courts are very dynamic. I have been on the 10th circuit, weve had almost complete. Urnover of our 12 judgeships it is a Dynamic Organization of people dont realize that because the Supreme Court is more stable and unchanging. I really think at the circuit observation,is my judges work hard to not predict that attitude. My experience with many callings around the country is that is true across the circuit. Judge fogel there are tens of thousands of cases that go to the Circuit Court of appeals. Hears 75 or 80rt cases of year. These are the courts of last resort most of the time. Another question is, how much of this is exportable to the rest of society . Something of a close universe and that we of all been lawyers, come up as judges, we all go through a severe vetting process most of the time so that you get people you know are committed to this set of principles. Think, weews is, i live up to the most of the time. To what extent can that be a model for others, and to what extent is it something as something that is unique to us as judges . Judge tymkovich i think a fair amount is exportable. We discuss our cases confidentially. The public doesnt get to see that part of our work. Bacon here lawyers make presentations and judges ask questions from the bench, but you dont have the benefit of seeing our discussions. They really are very productive discussions. We spend a lot of time getting prepared for an oral argument. Theink that helps deliberative process. The part that can be exported, i think, is the knowledge that you can bring together judges of many different that grounds different backgrounds who come from different parts of the country, different political parties, whose ideologies span from one end of the spectrum to the other, and there is the ability for those judges to talk about very difficult matters and reach some sort of decision. Court, thellate Decision Making process the group one. Every judge has to discuss the matter with two other colleagues. Would ithe thing that i think would be comparable to other parts of society is the tolingness and ability entertain a very different viewpoint, yet give them your consideration. Onhink we were very good job the courts in doing that. I think the Circuit Courts across the country, the courts 90 , 95 mous on around of decisions. The public hears a lot about the dissenting opinions, that most but most are unanimous by virtue of the work the judges put into the case, and the deliberations. Judge tymkovich there are systemic judge fogel there are systemic checks. Judge tymkovich i fully concur. I think the notion of Judicial Independence gives us a sense that we will be around tomorrow, we have the freedom to delve into an issue and speak our mind replication. Of i think we get we work to get the right answer. On my court we sit with every judge, every term of court on a rotating basis on three years. I will sit with every judge of my court. I think that level of familiarity rings a level of respect and understanding of their judicial methodology, their thinking processes for cases. I respect the way they arrive at an answer and i think they , andct my methodology, too as judge cole said, i think it leads to the nature of civil discourse that at least we can be an example. Judge fogel it is interesting, the independent, because this is another thing medicine fought madisond for fang fought very hard for, if you withthis conversation other levels, it is different. Slaves, have organized opinions are used as political statements to a different degree. I think this is one of the reasons why the framers were so interested in tenure for federal judges. , just you dont allthe idea that we are insanely wonderful people because, in fact, and i remember after one of the things, one of the cases, i happen to have conversations with two of the judges on the threejudge panel that decided the cases and they came out ups and directions, and neither was very happy with the other in terms of what they shared with me. They were frustrated them and they were disappointed. Its not like we are not human. But it is like Something Else comes in to play when you are speaking in your official capacity. I think it is important, germany, for the public to judges go about ieir business judge cole think it is important, jeremy, for the public to appreciate that judges go about their business in a very impartial way. Were trying to get to the right answer based upon each and every appeal that is presented to us. At the end of the day, it is important that the public has system of federal courts. And know that we are approaching these very tough, thorny issues that bring about a great deal of passion in a deliberative and impartial manner. Judge fogel i think were just about out of time, and i like to think my colleagues for doing exactly what i thought they would do. [applause] and i think, and my right . We have a break . See you all at 6 00. Thank you so much for being here. Next on cspan, coverage of tosident trumps travel poland. Thet, President Trump and polish president , then President Trump in krasinski square. Then, Hillary Clinton on women in politics. Cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up friday morning, we will be talking to local reporters from six states with republican senators whose votes are key to passing a health care bill, and ask what the senators are hearing from constituents. Be sure to watch washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern friday morning. Join the discussion. On friday, we will take a look at the constitutional war powers of congress and the executive branch, hosted by the federalist society. Speakers include former and a lawn professor. Starting at 12 15 p. M. Eastern on cspan two. This weekend on book tv on cspan two. Saturday at 11 00 p. M. Eastern, pat buchanan talks