tv The Supreme Court CSPAN November 26, 2009 8:00pm-10:59pm EST
tomorrow, and inside the pit the white house followed by the capital on saturday. in. we begin with the u.s. court. it lies directly east of the u.s. capitol and houses the courtroom of the justices. >> the hon. chief justice and the associate justice of the night of the of the united states. >> something different is going on here. you need to appreciate how important it is. >> this is the highest court in the land. the framers created it after studying a great lawmaker in
history. >> one of these cases was very close. you cannot go here to make the law to decide who wants to win. we decide who wins under the law. >> who will be surprised by the high-level? >> why do we have a beautiful structure? it is to remind us that we have an important country. it is to remind the public of the important and centrality of the law. >> it amazes me and gives me faith in our country to know how
much people trust the courts. >> i think the danger is sometimes the building things it is all about you. that is something that i do not think it works well. >> home to america's highest court. the role is to interpret the constitution of the united states. outside, almost daily expressions of protest are made by those of listing the courts except their case or role in their favor.
there are private rooms seen by those that are there. it is the justices appointed for life terms that have always defined this very human institution and the buildings in which they do their work. >> i think it is the previous building in washington. it is distinctive. is a different type of marble. it is lighter and brighter. immediately, i do appreciate it. it represents a different branch of government. it really is monumental. it represents the lincoln memorial in terms of the visual impact. if you view it as a temple of justice, i think that is
entirely appropriate. >> 21st come up to the steps -- when you first come up to the steps, there are too candelabras. -- two candelabras holding the scales of justice. on the of the side are the three faces. is it symbolic indication. as he traveled to the plaza, there are flagpole bases. if shows law and purpose. >> the statue to the left is and contemplation of justice. it is a symbol of impartiality.
on the right-hand side the other statue is an authority of law. the left arm rests on a hook. it is important for the public to make sure that people want to come up in these steps. not a day goes by where we do not as if we are doing this right. >> i think it is a mysterious brands. they do their work court camera is not allowed. and as -- they represent the people on the street. in some ways, they are very public. anything they do that will matter in their life will be down in black and white.
they will not be publicly announcing that before a camera. there is history to the supreme court. it gives a fair and honest interpretation to the meaning of dispositions that the people has -- have adopted. >> it is time that americans wake up. they had a clear vision in mind. that was that the federal courts would be deciding issues of federal law. those judgments would be binding on all courts, state and federal.
>> some of the difficulties -- we will let the judges figure them out. it is a cooperative venture. you realize it is not just the words. >> the public will see an opinion with the reasons, the discipline that a judge follows and what make judges unlike legislatures. we have to give reason for every decision we make. >> when you go into a big case.
-- when you go into the case, you would be brutish it begin not -- if you did not know the high level of that. >> the court is aware of that history. continuity is very important. history does influence how the court works. >> visitors will enter the building through the symbolic adore the recognizes the path of history to the law. >> there is an impressive marble door that separates the front door of the buildings from the doors of lead into the courts. that is called the great hall.
you are walking through the whole history of the courts. >> is defined not only by different people over time, but editions of new justices to the bench. >> the white house operator tells you if the president is on the line. >> i had my left hand over my chest, trying to calm my beating heart. the president that on the phone and said to me, i would like to announce as my selection to be the next assisted justice of the supreme court. i caught my breath and started
to cry. >> are you prepared to take the oath? >> i am. please raise your right hand and repeat after me. i solemnly swear. >> i solemnly swear >> they used to say it changes everything. they moved to the seats around. it is the same in the conference room. i think it causes you to take a fresh look. you can see how they will have the particular view. it may be very different it is an exciting part. >> the institution does not change at all.
you lose a friend. health the acquire another one. >> that is the process. it is different today than what it was when i first got here. you grew very fond of the court there was a time when we had a long run together. you get comfortable with that and then it changes. it is a new court. when now is trying jury cases, if a jury had to be replaced, it was just a different dynamic.
it is a stressful. we still admire our colleagues. i have great admiration for the system. i think it is healthy for the court to have members. >> i saw a program when they said there should always be someone who served in the forces. there should always be someone u.s. have practical experience in litigation. >> all of the justices have been extraordinarily warm. each one has invited me to call
them with questions. they do not know if i can identify anyone in particular. it depends on the fight in meeting them. when they meet them in the hall i go up to them and say, canyon -- can you? they happen all wonderful. the court continues to make decisions that impact the lives of everyday americans, taking on on a limited amount of cases. >> 8000 ask this each year to
hear the cases. that means about 150 a week. a hundred and 50 requests. here they are. -- 150 requests. here they are. >> it is the most onerous and an interesting part did the job is a ruling on all of this issue. it has increased enormously. we do not live get the cases. our job is to try to make the federal law is beautiful to the country.
other jobs -- judges have come to different conclusions. >> most people have a right to come to the court. it may be the court of appeals. it may be the state court of appeals. the course do not have discretionary jurisdiction. maybe they have a right. most of our jurisdiction is discretionary. >> you can tell if there is a case that people will give it a lot of attention. that does not change into our process. a lot of it is very mundane. ego third about half a dozen that'll make it to the front page of the newspaper.
there are federal arbitration acts. this is a big part of our docket. it will not attract any interest. >> even things that are boring kantor not to be challenging. it could be anything. i do nothing said it matter determined it. it is the challenge of serving this particular question and making it work. >> each one gets a vote. but it only takes four votes. the court used to have a lot more mandatory jurisdiction. when congress passed a law, that
is the deal we made. >> these of the cases that were granted and heard in the courtroom. behind the scenes, each has their own office. they work with the staff of four law clerks and several of his assistants. it is within their own chambers were work habits come through. >> i like to have a close at hand. all of it was inside. i'd like a quiet place.
this desk is made for the court. they all have similar desks. i have put a granite top on the desk. >> i like this office but if i had become home body. if you did get the window, you will see the capital. i was very lucky to have this office. it is a lovely office. everybody moved because you change offices by seniority. powell is the most junior. -- i was the most junior. when al was appointed, nobody wanted to move. in the office of two of my law clerks, i learn a lot about the law from them. >> i have been in four different chambers.
they are referred to as the retired chief justice's chambers. i was there for three or four years. after that, i moved into that one would have previously been occupied by the stewart. a tip over when he -- i took over when he retired. there are only three justices when i was there. >> it is this a few -- a view that provides a window into the past of the supreme court. meeting in the basement of the capital for the majority of their time between 1810 and 1860, john marshall oversaw the court from here during his
tenure. later, roger taney rolled over this court as well. they would meet there until 1935. with the very that a space available in the building for justices to do their work and it even less for attorneys to find a place to prepare for oral argument, one chief justice determined it was time the court have a building of its own. >> i do not think it is an understatement to say that it would not the year it had not been for the persistence of chief justice taft. >> he thought the court should have a melding of its own. he believed that. -- a building of its own. he believed that. it became an obsession. >> ultimately, taft to begin to share the duty.
that was to share the architect. guilford -- gilbert was one of the best architects of this time. it was the perfect match of architects and the employer. their idea was to have a building that would report to jefferson. it shows a little less and $10 million. it is actually a deflationary during the great depression. they are able to build it and finish it and still $100,000 back to the treasury of the united states. it came in under budget. it may be the only government building in history that came in under budget. >> the birth that he had done such a great job that the u.s.
capitol should be -- cass gilbert thought he had done such a great job that the u.s. capitol should be there. -- be moved to provide a better view. >> he worked in classicism. he was very serious. he had intentions to create a symbolic house for the third branch of government that expressed the seriousness of what we were doing, the authority for which the third branch should be invested, and an authority to work for what is right. >> supreme court justices are not shy. some of the justices felt the new building was to grand, was too grandiose. she suggests the sun was alleged to say that the -- chief justice
son was alleged to say that they were like beetles that should ride in on elephants. >> setting the record with the marble used, when it opened in 1935, seven of the nine sitting justices refused to move into their chambers in the new supreme court building. >> one of the justices at the time did a lot of work on it and did not want to leave the former chambers which were in the basement of the senate. he said if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will ever hear of us again. aggrandize said he would not come in here. --grandeis said he would not come in here. it has become a symbol of the court system, a third branch of government, and the need for stability, rule of law, which is what america stands for. >> neither taft nor guilford --
gilbert lived to see the completion. >> as you did get the building today, you not only see the vision of taft and his architecture, but the work of his successor. while most visitors see the west cited the structure, on the east side is a less use part of the building. >> the east portico is surrounded by the east pediment sculptures by chairman it now. he was given a lot of rain. he designed ideas for the sculpture. he stows to look toward the eastern traditions of law to choose some of this the years. the central figure is moses and on either side are confucius and
so on. to either side of those are some allegorical figures. in the corners are the allegory of the tortoise and the hair and the ideas that these bouquets of justice carries through -- the slow pace of the justice carries through. the load the pediment is the statement "justice, and the guardian of liberty." charles evans hughes wrote that on a memo when he was asked to approve the to inscription that would be put on the building. ♪ >> on the opposite side is the
west plaza, the entrance to the building and a place where many express their feelings about the court in the constitution. b>> i am not sure he intended it to be a convenience of protests. i am pretty sure taft did not intended for that. i understand people having strong feelings about some of the things that we do and were involved in, but it is not a situation where our decision should be guided by popular pressure. the protests are there as a way for people to express their feelings but should not be directed at us. you would not want us deciding what the constitution means a some of the popular feeling is. quite often our decisions are one said the court took that are quite unpopular.
>> as you look up, at the top of the supreme court, you see another symbolic pediment. this one pays tribute to the law and to some of those in the building's construction. >> in the west pediment are allegorical figures. the other figures that are represented are those that participated in the construction of the building in the history of the court. the architecture is represented. chief justice taft is represented. you also have john marshall represented as a young man.
chief justice hughes is represented. even the sculptor is represented in that freezieze. there is a phrase devised by the architects and approved by chief justice hughes. the world a taken on a larger meeting -- meaning sensenbrenner of today a larger meaning. >> -- the word had taken on a larger meaning. bu>> the basis on their color or background. the sense that it communicates that one can stand before the court and expect to be treated fairly. >> i do not want legalism.
i want the conclusion. in a moment, the justices and the one case that can sway them. >> we learned how to think about a case. it can alter how you view it. >> 8%? >> some of these cases are very close. persuasive council can make the difference. >> c-span began three nights of original documentaries on the iconic homes of the branches of government. if you like more affirmation on the supreme court, white house, our capital, visit our web site c-span.org. you'll find histories of all three buildings. c-span.org that is. three nights of original documentaries on the iconic homes of the three branches of
american government continues friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. inside america's most famous homes built our visit shows the gramm public places as well as those rare the scenes faces -- the grand public places as well as those rarely seen places. friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. get your own copy of a three disk dvd said. it is $24.99. the original documentary continues now with a look at cases argued before the court. justices discuss what they are looking for in a case a marked influence their opinion. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the supreme court hears between 8100 cases each term inside this building that was
open in 1935 and envisioned by william howard taft. he calls it the central noted the structure. it was adorned with red drapes and special columns made of marble imported from italy and spain taft called for more than just the courtroom. >> if they come in and give practical pointers. they try hard to put people at ease to be before going into the courtroom. there is a lot of camaraderie. it is friendly. there is a lot of nervous energy. it is friendly.
>> is designed to come to make sure there are not folk funds and that they not intend to tell jokes were not referred to their familiarity as when the justices. they ought to see it as a place where they can make the best case. >> we want to into that courtroom prepared and the size to have an equal chance. the attorneys are expected to be there at 915 in the morning. the regular is new to be there. sometimes you do not know your opponent. they exchange greetings. they take their seats. they go over the events that led her that day.
-- that are going to happen that day. if the answer any questions they might have. the attorney feedback i have gotten is that they like it very much. as the attorneys get their last- minute discussions, the justices are preparing for the experience in their own way. a buzzer is sounded in each chamber. >> about 10 minutes ahead, it reminds you that you are supposed to be on the bench. at that point, if you need to go down to the robing room to get your rope line in the ready to get there at the appointed hour. there are a number of narrow
little sections in which the justices are hung. your judicial caller can be on the shelf -- collar can be on the shelf. >> senger day o'connor and i thought it would be appropriate if we included it as part of our verot something to vocal of a woman. i have many collars. >> we do our work with of the roads or this building. is the significance of what goes on here >> we are all in the
business of impartial judging. in the united states, the pattern was set by john marshall who said that judges should not wear royal robes. they should wear plain black. those traditions anchor us in a process that is greater than ourselves. they remind us that the role we are playing is not a personal role. it is one that has an institutional important. that institutional importance is bigger than us. >> as we enter the robing room,
the first thing we do is go around the rim and each justice shakes hands with every other. that is a symbol of the work that we do as the collegial body. he may be temporarily missed the as you may have a differing opinion. when we go to sit on the bench, we look at each other and to shake hands. it is a way of saying we are all in this together prepared the chief justice says it is time to go. up in order of seniority. -- you line up in order of seniority. there are three justices on the left, middle, and right.
>> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court had managed to draw near and get their attention. the court is now sitting. god save the united states. >> one of the amazing things about the courtroom is the intimacy of it. on one hand, it is not that big of a room. the real instancy comes in relation bit chip -- relationship between the lawyer
who is arguing -- a stop to think of it, you will see that if one of those lanes of the bench as far as we could lean and the podium leaned toward us, we could almost shaking hands. that is a very important thing. that means when the argument take place, you are physically and psychologically close and up to each other so that there is a possibility for real engagement proposal. it is a grand room in which a very intimate process takes place. it is the kernel of a very grand building which has very intimate results for every american. >> the aura of the place is always present.
this is a chamber in which to be case was decided. presidential power was decided in that room by human beings sitting on that bench after and having listened to arguments by others. >> most cases have an hour per case. when utility people, the thing, is that all? >> you really does stand up and slide over a few inches.
>> they held that sons cannot share in the award given by the jury -- >> we have to give a few seconds. you will start getting questions within the first minute or two. but each of the justices had their own unique style about questioning. we have some people who like rapid-fire style. others like to spin out long hypothetical. but i do not want legalism. i want the conclusion. >> would you explain again why it was irrelevant whether the gun was operable or not? >> what did the government said in order to render possible you have to disclose certain facts which we will set it down? >> we do not sit down before
arguments and say this is what we think or how we viewed the case. we come to a clove -- cold. we are learning what the other justices view. that can alter how you view it on the sport. -- spot. it is a very exciting part of the job. >> there are nine people up there. i am with them. we are talking. i have no awareness of the courtroom. it is really quite remarkable. >> i do not view it as an opportunity for the justices to
advocate one point of view. i think the questioning should be designed to help understand what the arguments on both sides are in order to enable the justice to reach a decision. >> to sit on the supreme court and listen to the questions of your colleague is somewhat humbling. the moment i set down and was able to look out and see all of the people in the audience, it is probably the moment i will most intensely remember. there were lawyers to i have known for years sitting at the table in front of us, ready to argue. watching the intensity of everyone's face, i had forgotten how much people believe and know that they are affected by the court's decision. every question i asked has a
purpose and some important to something that is troubling me. >> i know some lawyers can interrupt in an eloquent speech. and add a kid wants to know what is on the judge's mind. -- an advocate want to know what is on the judge's mind. it might not resolve as well without the council response. >> it is all about building those questions and using the time strategically so you respond to the question it is essential -- question. it is essential. they are demanding. that is their job. it is valerithe very challengin.
>> i do nothing so your honor. >> the have to pick some number. >> does this stop being a quota because it is somewhere between 8% and 12% but it is a code if it is a 10%? >> a lot of people have the impression that it is a dog and pony show. the answer is that it is probably quite rare, although not unheard of, that oral arguments will change my mind. it is quite common that i go in with my mind not made up. a lot of these cases are close. persuasive council can make the difference. >> i once had an argument with a asked 56 questions in 30 minutes.
they interrupt each other. >> it had been my practice to wait for the end of the lawyers here fat before interrupting. you'll never get a question in. did you have to interrupt. -- you can never get a question him. you have to interrupt to get your voice heard. >> is an opportunity for the advocate, the lawyers to fill in the blanks. i think it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening. i think you should allow people to complete their butts. i find that coherence as far more helpful.
i do not see how you can learn a whole lot from the 50 questions in an hour. >> when in the bad signs of an oral argument is when the questions stop. it means that you have either not persuaded them or they had this to be did -- they have distributed it out already. >> when your time has expired, the red light goes on. >> it is an exciting part in the process. i'm going to hear what the lawyers have to say. it is an exciting day. >> sometimes i say to myself, am i read the fare or is this all a dream? -- am i really there or is this all a dream? >> there is a house that come
over people as they come and. there is a reverence. people look up and see if there is an extended helpanels. there are four panels of of the courtroom. in the center of this is the justice. she is leaning on her sword. she is ready for action if needed. among the forces of evil are the power, slender, and corruption. the forces of good on the other side are the defense of virtue in charity. behind, there are figures of divine inspiration. how did that, do have a
procession of the great lawgivers. it starts with an egyptian pharaoh. he is followed by other figures. there are some of the ancient lawgivers. on the other side, you come into more modern times. he had the most recent one, and napoleon. he was instrumental in creating the civil code which is now used in many european countries. it in on the last figure were you had the majesty of law and a car government sitting on the throne. there are american eagle
spreading their wings. on one side, you have a group of citizens and they are protected by a lawyer or a judge. on the other side coming to have another group of citizens and there is a warrior in front of those. you need to have the strength to back of the wall. >> it is amazing when you walk in. it is fixed in time. there are even to american flags. -- two american flags. they sit perfectly still. >> we sometimes kid that the quill pens they give to the oral advocates are exactly how they write their opinions. there are still justices the right of their opinion on long can. -- that right out of their
opinions on the long hand. >> the supreme court is also a very human institution. in a private room reserved by the justices, in your customer takes place, following oral arguments. one is encouraged by the first female justice. ♪ >> it is a beautiful room. it is very well furnished. it comes from the public
cafeteria. it is the same thing that any of us might use. you will be surprised by the high level of collegiality here. in his early years, there was no justice with him he disagree more often than justice brennan. justice scalia considered justice brennan his best friend on the court. >> this is a tradition that was nearly pushed by justice o'connor when she is on the court. it stuck. >> justice o'connor insisted that we have lunch everyday when we were sitting.
now clarence, you should come to lunch. she was really sweet. i came to lunch. it is one of the best things i did. it is hard to be angry or bitter at someone and break bread and look them in the eye. it is a fun lunch. very little work is done there. it dishes nine people or eight people having -- it is just nine people or eight people having lunch. >> i try not to miss the post argument lunch. you never know what my colleagues will be talking about. let's it is the role that we do not talk abut the cases. >> we will talk about the offer. some of us will talk about the baseball game or the golf tournament. some will talk about the good movie they had seen.
it is the kind of things that everybody would talk to their colleagues about at lunch. >> off the main justice dining room is a smaller dining room for smaller functions. this is due to a sculpture that was placed there in the mid- 1970s. chief justice warren burger decided he wanted to make it to the theme of the room. the cord donated a portrait of william marbury. there needed to be a companion portrait. they are literally on the wall of the small dining room. >> mark murray and madison is probably the most famous case discord ever decided. the idea of judicial review for constitutionality i think is
implicit in the constitution. john marshall made it explicit in the greed case of marbury vs. madison. >> there is no one case that says as much to a justice about what it is like to be a justice. a marbury vs. madison is the embodiment of judicial review. there is no quotation and all of the history of supreme court writing that justices were not referred to repeat than the phrase that says "it is emphatically the power and the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is." that is a quote from john marshall. >> would call him the great chief. use the first person to take the job seriously.
they would call him the great chief. he was the first person to take the job seriously. that means they get to initiate the discussions. there is a responsibility to make sure that all the issues are adequately aired. >> there is a change that each chief justice has his own method of handling the conference. the present chief justice is doing an excellent job. it pretty much follows the tradition. >> there is not much that the chief justice can do. they have a lifetime job. he can not fire them.
we have traditions. they will outlast any chief justice. the chief justice comes to a court where there are these elements of stability. we have our tradition. we have our oath. on the other hand, the chief justice who presides and steers as through the mechanics of cases -- by his personality and understanding of the law and the institution of his colleagues can do a great deal to set the tone. >> but colleagues were very helpful in filling me in on how things work, often in contradictory ways. udc -- you do get some sense of what to expect in the process. then you go in and do it and
hope they all do not say, what are you talking about? my eight colleagues were externally helpful in making me feel very comfortable. it is not just that i was coming in as chief and the youngest. they had been together for 11 years there have been any change. you can easily imagine that that would be difficult. they went out of their way to make me feel comfortable. i have always been very appreciative. >> in a moment, go behind the scenes to perhaps the most private and important room in the building where the decisions of the court did begin to take shape. but no one can enter the room who is not a justice, secretary -- not a secretary or law clerk.
>> i am the first time i set foot in the room and the doors closed. it is daunting the first times. that is where the actual work and the decision making take place. >> c-span began as three nights of original documentaries on the iconic comes of the branches of government. if given more information, visit our web site c-span.org. if you'll filings, public information, and histories of all three buildings. that is that c-span.org. . .
>> saturday, the capital. the history, art, and architecture of one of america's most symbolic structures. did your own copy, at a three- disc dvd set. order online. >> c-span concludes its original documentary on the supreme court with a look at the actual chamber where the decisions are made. only the nine justices are allowed to enter the room. >> in the most private and perhaps important place inside the supreme court, nine justices and only then meet together around the table in the conference room.
they discuss the cases heard in oral argument and begin a process to reach a decision. >> we sit at the conference table at the same places every day. i sit at one end. justice stevens sits at the other end, and then it wraps around the table in older of seniority. the >> i remember the first time i sat inside of that room when the doors closed. it was pretty daunting the first few times because that is with the actual work, the decision making, takes place. the >> we do not have any observers. no one can enter the room who is not a justice, not even a message bearer. >> i have to be professional and accurate and fair. each of my colleagues feel the same way so there is a little
tension and excitement in the room, but we love it. >> iowa initiate the discussion -- i initiate discussion. i think we should reverse or affirm and here is why. sometimes in an easy case, it will take a minute. for a hard case, it can take a lot longer. it will go by seniority. justice stevens might say, i agree with everything, or he might say, i disagree. or he might say, i agree with the result but i think the reasoning should be this. >> one of the best rules is no one speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. i think it is a very good rule predict everybody feels that he or she has been heard.
>> it is great to go first because you can say in a persuasive statement and what you think about the case. when you are on the end of that cue, you have a certain advantage, because you know what the others think. >> it is not an exercise in persuading each other. it is an exercise in stating your views, and the rest of us take notes. you take notes because if you get assigned the opinion, you know how to ride in a way that will get four other boats. >> -- that will get four of the other votes. >> i have the special job of opening the door if somebody knocked.
usually it was somebody had a paper or coffee. i had been doing this for 10 years. i think i've gotten pretty good at it. he said, i am not sure. the nine of us get along very well. >> it is in formal in the sense that everybody is a congenial and there is a certain amount of -- >> the justices are actually very thoughtful about what they are doing. each one was very thoughtful about giving their reasons for their vote. >> i still have not heard the first unkind word in that room. think what we decide. life-and-death. abortion. execution. war and peace. financial ruin.
gov relationship with citizens. you name it, we decide it. >> those discussions leave the justices to conclude attentively to affirm or reverse and the particular case. that vote is not cast in concrete. you are not walking on wet concrete yet. you can change your mind. >> it is not just when or lose. it is what russia now you lose -- you use. -- it is what rationale you use. if the case is close, 5-4, and let's say you are on the side that prevailed, the majority, there are not a lot of high fives. there is a moment of quiet and respect. >> my most imported responsibility is the
responsibility for assigning opinions if i am in the majority, i get to determine who will write the opinion in that case. that is an important responsibility because you want to make sure the assignment is given to the justice whose view commands the most support. also want to make sure the work gets done on time. some cases are more interesting than others. you want to make sure those are fairly distributed. some are harder than others. we get all sorts of different issues. you want to make sure each justice as a mix. a lot of factors go into that decision and it is a very important part. > as opinion writing assignments are handed out, a room exists upstairs that helps
the justices and their staff addressed president written in the countless legal volumes housed here. >> if they want to see the most beautiful room in washington, they ought to go up to the library on the third floor that nobody sees today. that is not so much roman classism, but it is a breathtakingly beautiful room. >> wh>> the library is probablye of the most special places in the building. the archways in the library represent science, law, industry.
there are shields that are directly above the archways, which represent various printers symbols. i spent a lot of time in the library. he would not go there to read supreme court cases because those would be in our own chambers, but looking for a secondary materials of different kinds, we would go to the library and work with the librarians. it was a wonderful place to work and it was also a quiet place to work. >> the library is one of the special rooms in the building and unfortunately does not get
used as much as it did it. when the court first moved into the building, they would call the dog each day in court -- they would call the docket each day in court. that is why you have the lawyers lounge, a place for them to stay what they find out which cases they will be arguing. this space is reversed -- is reversed for members of the bark and court staff only. >> i had a few times that i had to use so much material for cases, we occupied two or three or four of this table's said the law clerks could go up there and sit in the reading room and actually referred to all those passages. >> with precedence in cases researched in quiet chambers,
justices go about the process of writing the opinion, both majority and dissenting, which eventually made their way to the public as the final decisions of the court. >> it is an ongoing process. you write a first draft. you go back and read the case. you are also going back and reading the briefs it is a continuation of the oral argument process. >> the setting your view of the case itself is terribly challenging. some of the cases are tough and some are not. some are enormously challenging. in some cases, you want to wait yourself until you see other views expressed before being firm in your own view. it is a help to see it in writing, it is a help that when you have to write, putting it down in words rather than just
thinking it through. >> we have to convince our self. the first thing i do is convince myself. there is a lot of stuff that goes into the wastebasket. then you have to convince others. the court reminds you of the fact that you have this job to. >> when you have to write something out, you sometimes learn things about the case than you did not fully appreciate or understand before. i have changed my views in cases as i write. >> i do not enjoy it right thing. i find writing a very difficult process. i write, i rewrite, i rewrite again. it is going this out -- it is going out this afternoon, let me
read it one last time. every time i read it, i will change something else. it has to be sent down to the printer. >> i usually have to write two or three drafts pretty much from scratch before i am reasonably satisfied. after they are addicted back- and-forth, -- after they are edited back and forth, i circulate them. if the four judges join, i have the court. >> we realize one of us has to write out a decision which teaches and gives reasons for what we do. the point of writing an opinion is to command some of allegiance to the result. we have no army, no budget. we do not have press conferences and we do not give speeches about how wonderful might
dissent was. we do not do that. we are judged by what we write. we have to write something that shows we are following the rules, that we are open and honest, and we give reasons for you to believe what we did is right. >> i welcome the views of my colleagues on every draft that i do, and i share with my colleagues my views in ways in which to ensure that each issue we are addressing is also -- and each draft we are issuing is addressing the important point that the parties are making. i guess what they can expect from me is a very interactive colleague, both in welcoming their suggestions and to incorporate them into dress and sharing with them my own views as well. >> sometimes you take more pages than people think you should.
i use footnotes regularly because i think they are optional reading. i think people might gain from having the opportunity to read them, but they don't always have to read them to understand the argument and the opinions. >> once the person is assigned to write circulates an opinion draft, the other eight had a chance to weigh in. normally, they start acting within a day or two. dear sandra, if you will change a, b, c, and d, i will be able to join. if there is a dissenting opinion to be written, often people will wait to see the dissent before
casting their vote. once that circulate, it could be so powerful that it causes someone who attended the they had been with the majority to change their view to some extent. all of this, the details are worked out not around the conference table. it is in the riding of the opinions that the persuasion takes place. >> let's say i would go the same direction, but the majority only wants to go so far. i would write the opinion to go only so far, and not say anything about the other part. if i were writing a dissent on my own, i would write the opinion in the way that i reflect it. i would not write an opinion
deco's in a direction that is differently in the way i thought we should actually go. >> the dissent are actually rigorous and do not pull punches. i think it improves the quality of the majority opinion. it is something you have to anticipate. >> dissents are more fun to write. when you have the dissent, it is yours. you say what you want. if somebody does not want to join it, who cares. when you are writing the majority, you do not have that luxury. you have to craft a in a way that at least four other people can jump on. you try to craft in a way that as many people as possible will to jump on, which means accepting some suggestions that you might think -- that you might not think are the best but in order to get everybody on
board, you take them. >> if you are just putting out, you are going to be very receptive. the fifth vote is a more receptive want to make changes. >> we are not here producing works better never going to see the light of day. we are here to decide things. >> justice alito has the opinion in the court this morning. >> this is our moment. the guy from reuters is always the most pushy to get through because he wants to get on the wire. the rest of us can go dictate.
the supreme court public information office simply says here is the material, making it what you want of it. we make sure you have the material. it is very nice not to have the sense that somebody is trying to expand you. >> i'd like the pageantry, the justice himself or herself announce what is in the opinion, and then i raced down the stairs to the press area where we all have our laptops and die right first version of that story so it can get on our internet site. readers want to know as soon as possible while the court ruled and potentially what that might mean. >> a lot of people say it is a very secretive institution. no, it is not. it does most of its work in the open. as they like to say, the work
comes in the front door and goes out the front door. >> you are just a few steps away from the -- >> near the courtroom are two rooms used by the justices to occasionally speak to the public. from thurgood marshall's retirement announcement, two events with other justices, one can get a glimpse into the workings of the court. it is the private view of the east and west conference rooms and their portraits of past chief justices that helps one understand the history of the court. >> in the east conference room, we have the first eight chief justice's portraits. the first chief justice appointed by the george washington. then he gets elected to be governor of new york and decides that is a better job, so he
resigns and becomes governor of new york. did you have a beautiful portrait of john marshall -- then you have a beautiful portrait of john marshall. you have a chance to let people know their story, and that carries over to the west conference room where you have the two instrumental justices in this building. william howard taft on one wall. >> i like to go sometimes on a quiet night to the conference rooms because the portraits on the walls are all of my predecessors as chief justice. to some extent, you look up to them whereby with the degree of appreciation for what they have gone through. they are probably looking down on me with bemusement or amazement each of them has a
special took story to tell. you look up at john marshall and appreciate the importance as a court, moving it from a situation where each of justice wrote an opinion. right next to the most unfortunate predecessor, the author of the dread scott decision, he saw a problem that he was going to solve. tremendously misguided and injure the court for generations to come. that is how you look at your own job. the job does not give you a prominent role or historical significance just because you hold the job.
you recall the vital role in turning back the court and think about the importance of the independence of the judiciary, things like that. from time to time, i find it a useful reminder of the role of the accord and the role of the chief justice. >> as time moves forward, this building will remain time this, and the work of its institution inside will still be tied to past precedent and tradition. in many other ways, it is a forever changing place, defined by the human beings serving their as the justices, all trying to interpret a document over 200 years old in the context of a changing world. >> you cannot really judged
judges unless you know the materials in which they are working. you cannot say this is a good decision, a good score, simply because you liked the result. that is not the business judges are in. >> we do not get it right every time. this is a human institution and it has the same susceptibility that any other institution has. what i think the court does do, if it does not succeed all of the time, is to try all of the time. my sense is, probably a substantial number of people in the united states probably give us credit for trying even on the days that they think we should have tried harder. >> isn't it wonderful that we have that ability to rethink issues over time and look at
them and think about them and review them and consider whether the answers we have given should be considered at any point? it is a gift to america that we can do that. >> what i do, what i get fulfillment from, is living up to the oath to do it the right way, and to know that on behalf of my fellow citizens, i pride to be faithful to their constitution, to our constitution. that is where the exhilaration comes from. across the most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government. they do not elect us. if they do not like what we are doing, it is more or less to bad. they need to understand that when we reach a decision, it is based on all lot and not a
policy preference. >> i think the process is an open process in a sense that this is the one institution that explains in a public way what it decides and what it does. >> we have the constitution and the laws, and i think they mean something. i think the people of the united states trust us to interpret and apply those laws fairly and evenhandedly and objectively. that is the great responsibility that we have. >> 300 and people -- 300 million people. people in this country do not agree about a lot of things. despite enormous this agreement, they decided to resolve their differences under the law. >> the supreme court has been respected by the american people. i think it has been one of the
institutions of government that is most respected, so it is not size that makes the grandeur or the specialness of the place. it is what it symbolizes and what goes on here that makes it special. and it is. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]
branches of american government continues. friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern, but the white house. our visit shows the grand public places as well as those are rarely seen spaces. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the capital. american icons, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. get your own copy, a three-disc dvd set. order online. >> still to come on c-span, a debate on the future of capitalism. later, a reporter with -- and interview with reporters david axe.
i just wrote that one. i think they are going to prove me right. i have to say that there is a situation in this state, where obviously, you guys have seen. you are in the newspaper all of the time. i think it is hurting another republican nominee. the way things are looking right now, he may not win by 20%. you should be ashamed. you are right wing radicals. has nobody told you that virginia is no longer a red state? have you not been told that? that is what i heard on msnbc last year, that virginia had gone to the democrats and they were never going to lose it
again. i love politics. i just want to say one thing about pat robertson. i have been watching him since my grandmother forced me to watch him. [laughter] back in the 1970's. i never really appreciated his impact on this country even though i watched him as long as i did. until after hurricane katrina roldan across the gulf coast. i live in pensacola, florida. we started going over, my wife and i, the morning after hurricane katrina hit, we ran over to new orleans. i did my show there that night. my wife came back crying because there was no water.
we saw babies wandering around with parents in diapers to 03 days old. we immediately started raising money. we started noticing, even though fema was no there, even though the state was not there, and even though the red cross was not there, we started noticing these young kids show up prett. they said they came from pat robertson's group. it was unbelievable. it just struck me that i did not hear that in the mainstream media other than on our show. through the years, people were always trying to find a controversial that pat robertson
might say so they could talk about it. when you are work saves lives, when you give a cup of water, when you feed the poor, when you close those that have no clothes, when you are matthew 25 christians, nobody takes note. my family did, and we are proud to be here because of it and proud for pat robertson for all he has done. [applause] that is the end of the highlights, the positive talking. we are now going to invite people out here, and with any luck, they are going to scratch and claw at each other until blood is drawn.
let's begin with a man who has done some scratching and clawing himself for a while. he is doing it right now, making headlines again and making a difference. dick armey was born in a small town. it set the tone of his life style. despite discouragement from his teachers, he was the first of eight siblings to attend college. he completed his ph.d. in economics. he was a great legislator and was tapped by two speakers of the house to oversee the legislative agenda for the chamber. majority leader in 1995. the portrait was recently unveiled at the capitol ceremony and now hangs in the richard k. armey room of the capital. this is the first in the history of the house of representatives
to receive approval by the full vote of the house to be there for displayed in the capital. he was the author of a book and approaches and the subjects -- and approaches and the subject with one statement, "freedom works." please welcome dick armey. [applause] >> thank you. >> now let me introduce someone else. ariana huffington is a nationally syndicated columnist and co-host of left, right, and
center. in may, 2005, she launched the huffington post. it has quickly become not only one of the most widely read but one of the most influential medium. in 2006, time magazine put her on the list of the list of the world's most 100 influential leaders. in 2009, she was named as one of the most influential women in media and by forbes. originally from greece, huffington moved to england when she was 16 and graduated from cambridge. at 21, she became president of a famed debating society. she is known for her bold and fearlessness and believes in saying what needs to be said and doing what needs to be done to lead and succeed. she is a prolific author.
"shred of the constitution." she tackles the issue is critical to the 2008 presidential election and overall fate of the country her book was made into a film critic it was an international best seller and translated into 16 languages. she has made guest appearances on numerous shows. but she loves going on at no more than "morning joe." she lives in los angeles with her two teenage daughters. please give us a warm welcome to carry on a huffington. [applause]
>> look at these two. i am serious. not only do we need a referee, but we need a translator. i don't know if we need one more for that greek accent or for dick armey in that can do accent. it is a real honor to bring out on the stage a guy who has always been a hero of mine and they died in may of 1993 -- and they died in may if the 1993, i was a lawyer in pensacola, florida and never planned to get into politics. then i saw john mckissick and tim penny take to the house floor and offer an alternative budget. by the end of watching that debate, i told my wife i wanted
to go to congress and help this man out. i had a terrible haircut but unlike what was inside the mind. john k. 6 named one of newsweek's 100 people for the 21st century is a republican from ohio and believes in the power of the individual to raise standards and leave a better america for the next generation. he believes more government is not the answer, but that the actions of individuals can bring about historic change in the united states. he played major roles in a variety of groundbreaking achievements during his 18 years in congress, including beating -- including being the chief architect of the balanced budget plan that john, dick armey, and the republican congress accomplished. we balance the budget for years in a row for the first time since the 1920's.
that began with john's effort. he is known for his commitment to limit the government. he is a two-time new york times best selling author. he has been profiled on 60 minutes and has appeared on every cable news show and network. he also may be ohio's next governor. please welcome him. [applause] good to see you. i think the hair has gone better, john. [laughter] it's those ohio barbers. it is a great privilege to introduce a man that i absolutely love having on my
show. as chairman of the democratic national committee, from 2005 to 2009, former gov. howard dean with the democratic party more competitive while integrating national operations and standing up for democrats' core values. he was the architect of the 50- state strategy. remember that? there are certain people in the white house that thought that was a really dumb idea. howard was right, they were wrong. he built a strong organization in all 50 states. it is just a shame for the democratic party that howard decided to leave because i do not think they are going to wind virginia this year. he was elected lieutenant governor in 1986 where he served at capacity until he was
vermont governor in 1991. he was elected for a full term in 1992 and was elected four more times, creating a record based on fiscally conservative principles. under his leadership, vermont enjoyed a $100 million surplus by 2001. in 2002, he was named a public official of the year. he received a medical degree from the albert einstein college of medicine in new york city, and upon completing his presidency, he went into practice. he is married to dr. julie steinberg and they have two children. please give a warm welcome to gov. howard dean. [applause] here are the ground rules.
questions that were submitted by the audience will be selected by the sears and our distinguished panel concludes professor dog walker and professor jim davis. our timekeeper for today's debate is the professor at the robertson school of government and the city council member for the city of virginia beach. he will be using a traffic light system to keep our debaters and me on time. there will be a green light, meaning go. the yellow lightning in 30 seconds left to speak, and a red light that means be quiet. our agenda is listed in your program. we are going to begin with opening statements. then we go to a roundtable. then we are going to have a question from the audience that were selected by the panel. then we will ask our panelists to make closing statements.
i will conclude with a brief wrap up of the debate. let's begin with an opening statement from dick armey. >> ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here. i was struck immediately when i had this invitation. in this age of the construction is done and political correctness, i first reacted negatively. the word capitalism was first coined by karl marx. he described our private, free enterprise system. and one of those very rare occasions, despite the fact that the word was introduced in what is perhaps the most ironic book ever written on the subject of economics, the word was reclaimed and today, the word is used to celebrate a wonderful
experience of freedom and prosperity. so i applaud your use of the word. every economic community of persons, whether it be to people on an island, a family, at a state, a nation, or a community, they have to save -- they have to solve the basic problem of how to take their resources available to us and bend them to the task of attending to our material needs. that is called economics. we discovered that everybody intuitively understands and answers these questions are in a fundamental phenomenon called specialization and exchange, what adam smith as described as mankind's natural tendency to truck and buck.
private enterprise comes from people naturally exercising their right to have dominion over their own lives and property. it is all about me being able to own my land, my labor, and bend it to the tasks tending to my family's needs by serving the needs of others. and it works. in 776, a wonderful accident of history, the greatest experience of capitalistic free enterprise was also born in america in that year. but before that, going back to jamestown colony, they discovered in the first year, when they almost all died, socialism, communalism does not
work. they almost died. after that almost failure when losses were heavy, they discovered if we let everybody specialized and trade among themselves, we can prosper and this continent has prospered by that model ever since that discovery in it jamestown. it is all about the division of labor. now everybody that gets together to understand that while we might do everything by individual enterprise, there are some things we must do together, so therefore there must be governance. there has been no great call their that has understood or describe the necessary, essential, minimal role of government. the thing that fascinates me about my founding fathers is that they understood it in the most complex model whatsoever with a national government, a federal government, state
government, local governments all with their assigned tasks and the divisions of authorities, the divisions of labor, and all with a duty to fulfill them. when governments do that, freedom and capitalism survives. when governments forget that, it may perish. [applause] >> thank you, dick. now it is time for arianna huffington's opening statement. what do you say? >> i say capitalism will survive if we start practicing it again. right now, what we have is not the free enterprise capitalism that adam smith wrote about. what we have is government- sponsored government capitalism. will we have right now is privatized gains and socialized
losses. what we have now is the government picking winners and losers and pour in trillions of dollars into sustaining wall street that has spent the last few years making things up rather than making things. capitalism cannot survive if we do not go about doing innovation, go back to producing thing, if we do not go back to the foundation of capitalism. i remember from my economics course that adam smith, before he wrote the wealth of nations, and with about supply and demand and the invisible hand, he wrote the theory of moral sentiments. he understood that there could be no capitalism without a moral foundation. what we have seen in the last two years is the law of the jungle. then the government came in and legitimized it. this id if you are too big to fail, we will take care of you.
for capitalism to survive, we need to change those rules. we need to make it clear that if you are too big to fail, you are too big to exist. there can be no capitalism without failure. if you make mistakes, you fail. and then innovation comes up from the bottom, and new companies, new industries are created. if the government decides what industries are going to be supported and which ones are not, what we have is really a system beyond right and left, this is not the prerogative of any segment of the political spectrum. he had been a champion against corporate welfare. he said if we could perform welfare for the poor, we sure can reform welfare for the rich. things have gotten much worse
since then. he thought the battle against corporate welfare. he called them the dirty dozen. this is a battle that we all have to fight together if we are going to save the capitalist system. we need to save it because our democracy depends on it. right now, the middle class is crumbling. i am sure you all have friends who have lost their jobs, whose homes have been foreclosed, who cannot send their kids to college. we are going to have an unemployment in double digits very soon. foreclosures are skyrocketing, and yet our economic system at the moment is celebrating the recovery of wall street and multimillion-dollar profits by goldman sachs. there is nothing to celebrate until people are put back to work and until we stop throwing people out of their homes. the same banks that we bailed
out refused to do the preliminary loan modifications that would allow people to stay in their homes. we have 1.5 million homeless children in this country. i suggest we build a giant balloon and put these 1.5 million children in the balloon so the media can give some attention to them because they represent the failure of the current government-sponsored capitalist system. thank you. [applause] >> that was pretty impressive to have a complete discussion about capitalism, corporate welfare, and the balloon voyage in 4 minutes. congratulations. [applause]
-- [laughter] kasich, lets see if you can top this. in this country, we socialize the losses. i heard somebody else say a while back, isn't it interesting that in america, we preach free enterprise to a single mothers, but we practice socialism with the biggest corporations in america. let's have a debate about that. >> i wanted to start today by talking about some of the good things that we have that makes the country special. first of all, it is pretty interesting. we have a dna of entrepreneurship. kids learn from when they are very young that if they have a great idea, you can be something. in fact, not only can you be good but instead of having to work somebody else you can create an idea and have somebody else work for you.
in that idea has made this country very productive, very successful, and very generous. secondly, i think you need to our country, we have a flow of capital, not much flowing today, but that is because of retraction. people were doing things that were not responsible in an effort to make a lot of money. nevertheless, you can find capital in america if you have a great idea. you can go to your family or a private equity firm or a venture capitalist and you can take an idea from the back of your head translated onto paper and create something. that is a fantastic thing that has changed the world because of the creativity of individuals. finally, we have the world -- we have the rule of law. it is so important because we have referees in most cases and in most times that can decide what are the rules and what a loss. we hear about people wanting to
go to china. i can tell you that the first concern that you have investing in china is if your investment is safe. if in fact if i have my money invested over there, can i get it back? that creates uncertainty among people that have capital to want to invest in these great ideas. nevertheless, india and china have lifted about a half of a billion people out of poverty in the last couple of decades by experimenting with this. the with the flow of capital, and with the notion that we have the rule of law. all the bill should be underlaid by a value system. one has written that our economic system and our political system should be underlaid by a value system, namely the judeo-christian ethic that gives courage to politicians to do the right things, which they are increasingly not doing, and secondly gives conscious to
those in corporate america that understand that greed is not good. that movie was wrong when the man said greed is good. it is not good. in it doublets of the word describes an evil. profit come up positive. greed, not good. that value system is so important to a free society, and when you walk through the buildings and you see washington and jefferson and madison, they understood it prett. what threatens us? government growing so fast and so big that it has the ability to get in the way and crushed the small businesses in this country, the lifeblood of the employment in this country for people. small business matters, and they get it. secondly, the debt that comes from the expansion of big government, threatening to erode the very strength of our economic system. how are we going to pay for it? are our kids going to have to pay for it? it creates a whole, confusion,
doubt, and dickie from us being able to march forward. finally, one other thing that we must deal with, a education system that is not producing enough of the best and brightest students. you go into a grudge with classroom today in math and in science, and you know who is there? people from other countries. now they go back because they have an inkling of what made america great. we need to fix that education system and grow the best and the brightest to drive this country to growth and prosperity. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, john. it is great to have howard dean here especially now since we are in the middle of the health-care debate. there are a lot of republicans that say that this health care plan is socialism, that it
creates a great threat to free enterprise and capitalism. i look forward to a discussion of that and your opening comments right now. >> thank you could i am going to go off topic a little bit because i want to set the stage for this discussion. this past election in 2008 is the most extraordinary election since 1960 because it is an election that shifted control of the country to a new generation. this is the first time in the lifetime of anyone in this room where more people voted to work under the age of 35 in the presidential election that were over the age of 65, and they voted 63% for barack obama for president. this is also the first multi- cultural generation in the history of america that a new
generation has grown up with a lot of different kinds of people. we all knew that racism and so forth was wrong, but we grow -- but we grew up in silos in my generation. this generation has learned to get along. this generation has an extraordinarily different view of how to run things. they -- this is a true story. after ike a ton with the primary in 2004, i tried to start to put my life back together again after you run for president. at that time, my kids were teenagers and they came up to me. they said, dad, you are just too confrontational. . .
here is what i found the. the top three evangelicals, if they are over 65, we know what they are, a gay rights, abortion rights. and they are under 35, and they are poverty, climate change, and darfur. i said this page could come out of the democratic party platform. why aren't we talking to these people. why do not we find doesn't think we agree on? can we stop fighting over this thing?
this is an extraordinary generation. this is much more narrow than ours. i am looking for to this. i think it is time said this letter differences. now it is time to actually move forward. we spend a lot of time trying to deny this. we have been instructed not to have too much commonality. i am looking forward to the debate. we have to get to work on these
differences. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. what was that number again? children under 35? >> more voters who were under 35 than over 65. >> what percentage voted for barack obama? >> 53%. >> there are a lot of disillusioned people out there now. [applause] >> most not care about health care. >> thank you so much for being my straight man. one thing he did say that i think the mainstream media has met, the talk but evangelicals under 35. starting about 95 or 1999, when young children would come, under the age of 46, -- right now, at
age keeps going up. i noticed the even started dressing differently. my parents raised me in a southern baptist home. so much was framed at what happened to the 1960's. the radicalism of the '60s, the drug revolution, the sex revolution. the social issues were critical. i started noticing in 1998 and 1999, the kids that were coming in from the same churches that i went to were wearing birkenstock. there are looking like bohemian people. why are you here? what issue is important? they would say aids in africa. it is amazing that there has been a shift, especially among evangelicals in part, it is just because of the ark of how things are going.
there is a lot more commonality among younger americans. now if you do me a favor and get nasty. just thursday mean things. gary 1f, -- just say mean things. ariana, if you the launch a personal insults about howard. does look at how he dresses, start there. insults me. we are glad to ask you to be the first one to get this started. let's talk about capitalism. all we have heard is that barack obama, a democrat, health care, socialized health-care, will destroy capitalism. let's talk about these guys that have been going on. knock yourself out. i will sit back and have a
water. >> he is famously said that his dream is to make government says mom the weekend drown it in a bathtub in the do you agree with that? -- that of. do you agree with that? >> if you read milton friedman, if you read glucagon macy's -- government is more than a necessary evil. every serious scholar, including those scholars who wrote our constitution, understood there are essential tasks that must be carried out by the government. there must be carried out well. the question of how big to be the government relative to the rest of the economy is being debated across the globe in alberta the -- globe in now.
they are in languages i do not understand. how blake today to the government be? to do essential tasks. -- how big should the government be? to do its central task setuthe . productivity land to the private sector. there are some thinks government cannot do and can only mess up and governments should have the sense to restrain themselves the o. >> what about a public option for healthcare? >> the biggest problem with that is that it is not necessary. if you look at the small government conservatism, the government should restrain itself from doing anything that
is not proven to be both the correct and right thing to d and the necessary thing to do. >> this is all on generalities. let's get specific. in 1995, you said in medicare is a program i would have no part of in a free world. do you still agree with it? >> why did i know you would bring that up? >> absolutely. do you still agree? >> i am glad you did. [laughter] bless you, my child. in medicare today, a system that is supposed to be voluntary right now, if you do not sign up for medicare comic they take away your social security. is that freedom? if you do not sign up for medicare and you go to a doctor, and he treats you and
receives payment, that doctor is liable for government imposed sanctions that can be very punitive. and that doctors said piatt will give up and accept those sanctions -- and if the doctor says he will get up and except those sanctions, it will shut down the hospital. what has that to do of liberty? [unintelligible] medicare is a program i would have no part of. >> do you agree with yourself? >> absolutely. [laughter] will you listen to me? that is c-span right there. you just admitted he did not wonder gramm ought to have id.
>> i want my grandmother to be free to choose. i do not want to be compelled or lose my retirement. medicare can be a great benefit to people who are free to choose to enroll. people also should be free to not enroll. >> let me ask one more question. these people deserve straight answers. aren't you tired of politicians by giving you straight answers, triangulating? this is a very simple question. i want a very simple answer. you said on december 11, 2001 that security is a rotten streak on america. do you still agree? >> i will be the translator. >> it is difficult when i have
to translate your own words. [laughter] you said in 2001 that social security is a rotten trick on sociaamerica. >> the federal government prosecuted bernie madoff because he let people voluntarily subscribe to his program where early subscribers will be paid off with the receipts. they said, how can you come up with such a scheme? he said, a social security. [laughter] >> i have been around politicians for a while. you will notice the republican
advocating the abolition of medicare and social security is retired. >> i did not say that. here is the deal. >> you get five seconds. >> now is 15 years old and the government did you have the right to put your private savings into the public plan or private plan, i would have said i will stick with the private. it did not give me that toys. they forced me into the worst retirement plan i've ever put into. >> thank you very much. before we move on, i want to do a quick follow-up with john k. siaseck. do you agree with everything he does said it? -- said an said? -- do you agree with everything he just said? [laughter]
>> there was a 31. >> i need a yes or no. do you agree that medicare is "a program i would have no part in in a free world?" >> i do not agree with that. the great tragedy was when i left congress in 2000, we were running surplus. it was something we have not seen in 40 years, since man had walked on the moon. we have enough surplus to be able to fix social security, to provide more security for the young people to make sure that the senior citizens had the program that they wanted. we could have had a very smooth transition. that opportunity was blown. it was blown because it seems as though politicians are unable to
honestly approach programs that need fixing. party loyalty get in the way. the party is a vehicle, not your master. you are there to fix it. >> we are now going to move. >> i like what you said. nothing gets fixed from the extremes. it has to get it in the middle. what people are concerned about -- first of all, you have a stimulus package with the republicans were totally shut out to the process. they had ideas they thought would improve productivity and cut down on a lot of the pork- barrel that uighur carried out on capitol hill. they had no input. on this health care debate, i am told that republicans have not been included. their ideas have not been accepted. that is why we have the great
polarization. if you look at the party's going on, they are nothing more than people saying, my government is not listening to me. how are we ever going to fix these problems? health care needs to be improved. we needed to do something that would increase productivity. it was a one-party jamming something through. it is like nobody gets to say anything but the people in charge. if they cannot pass it by getting enough signatures, they will jam it through with procedures. how can we address these problems if all we are doing is saying it is my way or the highway, partisanship rules the day? >> i am going to answer the question. i regret i will give a partisan answer. my understanding is pretty clear about what happened. senator demand spoke to a lot of people -- demitt said our object
is not to pass health care. if we manage not to have health care, that of a president obama's waterloo. the republican party decided it dismwas more a part in the pastd the health care bill. senator grassley of visited tea parties. he is announcing death panels. you know who wrote to the language which was later called that? senator charles grassley. he wrote to the language because it makes a lot of sense to give older people more control over the end of their life. what was in the bill was then put into the public option. i do not want to defend brutal partisanship were nobody talks to each other. but to have bipartisanship, both people have to be willing to talk to each other.
it was a conspiracy of both sides not talking to each other. >> you have republican governors that did some pretty remarkable things in health care. you gave democrats some credit. likely not agree to the fact that we ought to have free enterprise in health insurance? we ought to force the companies to compete across state lines we have competition. why do we do that? why do we not say we were going to force doctors to have transparency on their pricing? why do we put people in a position of stake in their own health care? why do we deal with these malpractice suits? it eliminate pre-existing conditions. you and i could write a bill out here. we could drop out the public option. you get a bill that would take as of the 60% of the way there. why not? >> we had this discussion before.
we come from different political sides. we have talked about health care. i hope i do not destroy your representation. if we could sit down for a day, we come up with a solution that 80% of americans could support. what is the deal in washington, d.c.? why cannot that happen? why do you have harry reid telling the president of the united states, no, i do not even what olympia snowe or one republican supporting this health care bill. >> i would disagree right now. free enterprise is not worked well in healthcare. the administration raised -- >> we do not have health insurance of is competing across state lines. but that is the worst thing you could do. what are you kidding?
>> in my state, under 18 everyone has health insurance. we cannot be reduced by any insurance company no matter what the reason except non payment of premiums. everybody gets charged the same. you cannot charge a sick patient who is older and more than 20% more than you can charge eight young and healthy patient. that has been going on for 15 years. [unintelligible] the not an insurance rate in texas is that 25% of adults. i do not want the health commissioner in texas have anything to do it by health care system. -- to do with my health care system. >> i have one question. >> we are over time.
you have 15 seconds to ask a question. >> if we force the insurance companies to compete, competition is led to offer you more choice and lower price. >> the way they get to lower prices is to not comply with my roles in vermont. >> they can comply with your rules. they can offer it at a lower. >> they will not. >> yes, they will. >> hold on a second. hold on a second. howard. >> i feel like rodney dangerfield. and no respect. it is a good debate. i will use my moderator's prerogative. it seems simple to me. if we set federal standards, if we tell insurance companies you have to live by these rules, and
we tell americans you can go online because of the team hundred plans are on line, that gives us the same our opportunity. last year we went on line. why can we do that with health care? why can we say insurance companies if you want to deal in america, you have to live by the standards. i get to shop for health care plan that works for me what my 24-year-old assistant is a different one that'll be cheaper. doesn't that make sense to give people more options? b>> this is going to get mixed up. i'm going to agree with dick armey. [laughter] i was a governor for 12 years br. i would rather have this done by the state.
we have to finish up. the cbo came out. it said the pass meaningful tort reform it will take $54 billion. why can the democrats make that part of the bill? >> there are a bunch of reasons. tort reform is a state issue, not a national issue. and 90% are filed in federal court. it is hard for the congress to rewrite state constitutions. the democrats are not want to put in tort reform. they give us lots and money. >> he is on this. >> the republican and not want to vote for the bill anyway. why should we get the trial lawyers in it.
it is true. it is all true. i hope the moderator will give me a chance to ask both of them. the first is to dick armey. on october 30, 2009 you said that grandmas should be free to choose medicare whether she wanted to or not. the question is if he is still a crude yourself from 10 minutes ago -- if you still agree with yourself from 10 minutes ago. >> in medicare, there is no choice. i am in a lawsuit right now. i am saying we need the right to say no to medicare. i deny anita. i do not want it. i am a cranky old man.
[laughter] i have to sue the government for my right to say no. if i do not sign up for medicare, if they take away my social security and a payback every dime. they punished me by taking away my lessons. when patrick henry said give me liberty or give me death, the government gave me medicare. [laughter] all i am saying is if they can take medicare, presented to america as a man of a sudden gesture where you are free to choose and in cajole everybody into it or not into it, -- you
get to be a ward of the state. if they do not medicare, they will do it with all of health care. >> dick and i were on cnbc discussing the bailout. we had a discussion about whether aig and citicorp should of been bailed out. your position was that they should not have them. my position was i think the economy would have collapsed. you work for lehman brothers for nine years, and you agree with dick -- do you agree with dick? >> in those days, you remember that there was a camp. what we were concerned about what anybody the understood a little bit about the financial markets.
this was not really about citibank. it was about whether americans have confidence about their own banks shutting down. you have a situation where they increased the amount of fdic insurance to people did not run to the bank. i do not think the bill they passed was great. i do not think they did it inappropriate amount of time. we ought to let the banks pay the money back as quickly as they can. i think the initial step was to try to bring about calm. what they are doing now is just wrong there were things in this country fighting to pay back these loans. some of them could not do it. some of them are threatening to go public. a number have paid it back. i wanted to go back to trial
lawyers. i know it was a good answer. -- glib answer. when i was in the congress, i went offered -- after corporate welfare reform. you know how many people i made happy by going after corporate welfare? it did not make anybody happy. you should do things on the merits. if democrats to take on the trial lawyers and say this is out of control and driving up the cost of medicine, and they would be given a gold star. i think they would do better in the polls. the old times should be over. the public is fed up with it. [applause] >> if that should be over, let's get the republicans to start
voting for health care and sitting down at the table with us. [applause] >> i have been out of office for over eight years. you think i am happy that they blew up a balanced budget? i am the first one to say the republicans lost their direction and forgot what it was about. they started caring about themselves for the time is for it to change. >> i know that dick and john and i do -- in 2001, when republicans took over both sides of pennsylvania avenue, all the work we did together and the fighting that we did, we had a $185 billion surplus. by the time republicans left town in 2008, it was a $1.40 trillion deficit. the national debt went from
$5.70 trillion to about $11.60 trillion. >> it cost them their majority. they lost their way. they forgot what they were said to do. that is what politicians better remember why they were sent. but forget all the who wins the next election. >> and they got exactly what they deserved. i wrote a book saying if republicans do not stop spending money, they are going to get thrown out. people do not vote for them because they are republicans because they are conservative. let's go to dick armey. i feel really bad day. you have not had a chance to talk tonight. here is your chance. but i was afraid as one to have to give my best roszak imitation. you do not remember. no culture in [laughter] this group] we know good
nutrition is essential to life. and we all know that in america good nutrition is a right. we also know that senior citizens are people of extremely bad judgment. have you ever watched senior citizens in the garage door? my goodness the crap they buy. [laughter] they are clogging up their arteries in drinking whiskey and beer and wine. what irresponsible behavior. these people cannot be trusted to look after their own best interest. on top of the irresponsible ignorance the -- n >> is easy. john, if you like to walk offstage what he finishes. >> they turn brain dead at the age of 65. they are buying all this garbage. we have to protect them from this.
there are some seniors that are going hungry. that is a terrible thing. at the age of 65, every senior citizen must only buy their groceries with federally issued food stamps and this food stamps must be only redeemable for things you and i approve of. in the grocers door whoever sells to someone over the age of 65, and the groceries whatsoever that do not exist on the list will be closed down by the federal government. if i were to propose that to you, would you call me a heavy- handed man? [laughter]
>> i would actually say they you are wasting our time. >> i am wasting time? >> you are wasting my time and everybody else's time we are not here to debate this. weary here to debate real problems. -- we are here to debate real problems. i will not dignify your question with an answer. >> that is what they did with healthcare. >> stop. >let me just answer. the time for this kind of game is over. we are in a real crisis. but me finish. we need to find out what is happening with the
pharmaceutical companies. we are getting all the people to buy products on a long list. >> let me explain my time. >> let me answer your point. >> my goodness gracious. >> we are allowing the system to paddle anything. reading peddle -- we are allowing the system to peddle anything. i do not believe that millions of children are depressed. this is the problem with a system that is under control. we never should have allowed them to advertise drugs. it is a decision between your doctor and you. what may i?
-- >> may i? i propose we take an action that is identical for senior citizens. you find that is unacceptable. my point is simply when government understand their legitimate limitations, have respect for their people, and restrained from their excesses' abuse of power, then we can prosper. if the government were to have the decency to take care of only that section of the population that means their care and the everybody along, the government would be appreciated. >> we have to move on to the question. but if you are so concerned about what government does, why did you take $750,000 to do the
bidding of your client? >> that is known as a cheap shot. >> that is a fact. >> i did spend some portion of my life as a lobbyist. it is one the few occupations that is explicitly approved of in our constitution. it is the right to petition your government there is a thing wrong with petitioning your government. the responsibility lies in the government, the people who have the position of public response ability to discern when it is appropriate to say yes or no. >> this is a cop out. if the government did not have the power, then lobbyists would not be able to make a living. >> i only implore the government to do well those things that it must do.
they need understanding to refrain from doing things that it cannot do well and probably i just want the government to be responsible. i do not want my tailor to give me a cup. >> let's move on. >> this moves -- this comes from hillary. >> hillary? [laughter] >> she got from pakistan to virginia beach very quickly. it is capitalism married to democracy and said that as one goes so goes the other? >> i think it is. one of the biggest problems in the last 18 or 20 years is that because the to the run together, democracy has gotten into trouble. i think trade is a great thing.
i think it has done a lot for the stability of the world. the free-trade agreement that we cut our great for the corporations. one of the most chilling things that happened to me in my race for president if i went to a foreign country to give a speech. flights leave at all hours. i was at the airport at 2:00 in the morning. we started singing things a lot of things you would not say during regular social hours. he wanted to know why americans but democracy was so great. this is a country where we had exchange urban poverty for rural poverty. they have not seen any benefit from free trade. they thought capitalism did not work.
they thought democracy did not work. but it to capitalism for a second. -- let's get to capitalism for a second. it harnesses hour and not so great emotions as well as our good ones. the problem is the roles have been tilted in the last 15 years, not just by republicans, but so the average person is in trouble. that will undermine democracy. if you treat capitalism as a football game, you have to have a referee. there is a broad spectrum of opinion. there has to be a referee. if there is not, it is not work at all. >> let me ask the question. this is from a law student here.
she asks, did capitalism flourished when republicans led the house, senate, and white house? if not, what went wrong? >> when you think about 1995 until 2002, i will tell you what we did. this is no different than what reagan did. carter said to wear a sweater if you are cold. reagan said less government lowers the taxes. people have an incentive to go to work. these are all the things the tea parties are protesting. in 1995, we went through a tough time with president clinton. at the end of the day, we reached an agreement what did it do? it began to shrink the federal government and reform these entitlement programs to make them more effective, efficient.
drug dealers are going into medicare fraud. it is an amazing story. what we tried to do was reform those entitlement so they actually worked for. we shrunk the government. reduce the taxes on risk taking. we paid down the debt. written from 1995 through 2002, we were all rich. people were working. the system worked. some say republicans need a new agenda. they do not need a new agenda. they need to understand what has worked in this country for 200 years. government is the last result, not the first resort. keep taxes low. run the country from the bottom up.
pay down your dead and you can make the system work. -- debt and you can make your system work. they figured it out. you will see. >> i was surprised going back. i was talking to people that were with me in 1994 that came into me that way. i was shocked when i walked on the house floor. i said, what are you guys doing? the same guys that were fighting you because you are not one far enough, and they said, you know what we are doing? we are getting reelected. they were serious. we are still here. the next one comes from kim holly.
do you think the noise our culture of a non centered internet prevent or encourages honest political discourse? >> it has given a voice to the voiceless. mistakes have created a marginal scraggly. the new york times established marginal stories on the front page. it turned out to be completely wrong. it took a month to correct them. on the internet, mistakes happened.
some choices may be shallow, but you find the truth about things. people might ask me, how do i know what to believe that you read multiple things between twitter and facebook. >> let me just say about her side. and she says for the private enterprise to take care for situation. i have written columns for different sides. i immediately called the most horrific names in the books. they are horrifying names. arianna has begun to put together a system where she
streams these comments. if they are abusive -- you disconsolate have people screaming this. the very people -- few people, not to. i appreciate that. >> we want multiple voices. >> you are making those decisions as a person. i think that is the important thing. >> to hear grumblings about the government coming in to save newspapers, that is unbelievably troubling. the priority is to save journalism and not newspapers.
>> this is where we talk about pat robinson's work. what is the most urgent action that should be taken by the united states government? >> the first important thing they can do is to encourage private initiatives. more good has been done for people who were truly needy by churches and private charities than anything else in so far as they have these are public resources, your tax dollars used them judiciously.
when you give to people who do not need it, you diminish those resources available to the truly needy. the government is not very discerning here. we have a government that has a medicare plan that is $40 trillion of unfunded liability. they will not let the people who are capable of taking care of themselves get out of the program. how does that make resources available for those who truly need it? if your net he needs money for braces, you do not give your predict if your nephew need money for braces, you do not -- if your net you need money for braces, i do not give it to your niece. you are paying their charity
with your money. it is administered on behalf of their own job security breaded and the truly needy people in the community. the problem is government of lax discipline and discretion. private charities where they have that. [laughter] [applause] >> i'll give you two minutes to respond. then we will have our closing comments. >> i think there is a difference between defending government and attacking capitalism. there has been a lot of attacking social security and medicare. there are not 11 people who were alive when sir security were put in. -- a lot of people who were alive and social security was put them. the poorest group in america before social security were people over 65 years old.
the reason they are not the poorest age group in america anymore is because the social security and medicare. i think it is legitimate to have debate about capitalism and what we will do. we can have a lot of fun as you want to be about government. social security and medicare are not going anywhere. george bush talked about privatizing social security. that was stopped. we can have this debate about capitalism, but i think launching into this attack on social security and medicare is just not realistic. it is a core body of americans that we ought not to have senior citizens. that is why we have programs like this. >> you talk about how social
security before medicare. now that we have had this massive income shift to the elderly, all the government going to the elderly, you know that announce the poorest people in america are the most impoverished. they are children. you can look at what president obama decided to do with how many billions of dollars that when you make those choices -- billions of dollars. when you make those choices, transferring all the federal revenue to the group that happens to vote, you take it away from the society that has these power and is surely voiceless, there are consequences.
is the federal government not even there to send them billions of dollars? >> you are talking about the decrease in social security? >> exactly. is the federal government not picking winners and losers? aren't you taking it away from other americans? >> i do not support that decision. social security is in trouble. it will not be out until we figure out how we will rein in benefits. that is a plain fact. ronald reagan and tip o'neill agreed on how to fix that. i agree that there is a lot of politics. from both sides play that pretty well. somebody will have to come along and fix it. there is redistribution in america. i am not against it. in a pure capitalist system, the
people who make all the money on wall street -- you think we were in a capitalist system? the folks have a lot of money from . there will be redistribution. that is why medicare and social security are a redistribution program. that is what the real argument is about. >> there are 18 year olds that believe they will see a ufo before a social security check. if the fact of the matter is, the reason why we have not fix this program is because it is used as a baseball to cut each other over the head. it has to stop. it is about leadership.
>> we are ready to close. >> i wanted to take off from there. >> i was thinking this will be a wonderful time to close. you can take off from there. >> john kasich, everybody. >> it all comes down to leadership. we tend to focus on the political system. let's think about the overall system? but break it down. i read a couple of names down. in sports, we ought to admire pat stillman he gave up his life to fight for the country -- pat tillman who gave up his life to fight for the country. he raised the bar. [applause] we all can see great leaders. they get everybody to raise their game. fdr went through a depression and a war. ronald reagan discord the spirit of our country.
-- ronald reagan got us in the spirit of our country. [unintelligible] i have a chance to work with bono. he said his platform was given to him by the good lord. that song is not about issues. bono has saved many people. he is brought republicans and democrats together to do great work. pat robinson, billy graham, that is a fantastic thing. there are so many people that proclaimed the one thing and are not. they have got as all to raise our game.
in business, there are some scoundrels out there. giant bonuses, golden parachutes. who cares about employees? if you think about bill gates, bill gates has changed the world. even a little device like the ipod has brought so much joy. it is leadership it is leadership that is people to raise their game. the good lord has given us all a set of talent. our role is to figure out what they are and use them to become part of a team to raise our game and improve the world. america has challenges. there are so many things we have to deal with. if we all become leaders with
the groups we associate with, we can change the world. it is about leadership. i am not a saint. i raise the bar. remembered what our parents taught us. that is how we will make america agreed to replace 100 years from now. thank you all very much. [applause] >> i think it is about personal responsibility. there are people who believe all the time. the good leaders are the ones that tell the truth. there are 11 people who do not want to look at the truth. i have been debating for a long time about this stuff. it is a lot of fun. i hear a lot of people talking
about your wallet and taxes and the stimulus package bur. the stimulus package kept 100,000 teachers from the laid- off. they do not want their property taxes to go up or the quality of education to go down. it is a time -- we were not one to be something for nothing there rejected the tax increases. the situation is the one to change. he did not get the stimulus package, i did they would go up more or you'd have to start cutting services. you cannot pay something for nothing. everybody is afraid to tell you that you cannot get something for nothing until the deficit goes up and up.
they are going to be inflammatory ads on television. i talk to them a lot. as in the lead time and colleges. it is not about electing me to fix all your problems. that is not want to have them. what i tell this new generation is something they already know. all of them have gone on to serve some place. some have stayed he