Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy visits HLS

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Hello everybody. Before we start, I have a couple of ground rules to mention. Please do not tweet today. Please do not text today. Please just bring your whole self here and be here. OK? Everybody agree? OK. With that said, I am absolutely ecstatic to welcome back to Harvard Law School, Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of our own alumni, and let me say-- [APPLAUSE] JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Who has never seen any of the buildings I've been in this morning. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: We couldn't be more thrilled that you're here. I'm going to say a few more things about you, but then try to have as much time for discussion. First I'll ask some questions, and then open it up for discussion. You are allowed to applaud at any of the further descriptions that I have about him. So Justice Kennedy is from California. Justice Kennedy studied political science. Justice Kennedy went to Stanford. I wondered what would happen with that one. Justice Kennedy also studied at the London School of Economics. Justice Kennedy practiced law. Thank you. And didn't make a lot of money. Justice Kennedy taught constitutional law. Come on, come on, OK. All right, done with the applauding. When Justice Kennedy was in private practice for a substantial period of time and taught for a substantial period of time, and most amazingly, continues to teach, at the McGeorge School of Law, where he I believe is the longest teacher on the faculty there. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: I suppose that's true. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: President Gerald Ford appointed him to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. And then he joined the United Supreme Court in 1988, and there he has written landmark opinions in fields as disparate as freedom of speech, habeus and the War on Terror, campaign finance, and marriage equality. He is the decisive vote in crucial cases. A magazine had a photograph of him that was a flattering photograph, that called him The Decider. And he is an ardent defender of liberty and of dignity, a word that has not previously to his time on the court, been mentioned as often as it has been-- JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: And you're very gracious not to use the term swing vote. I hate that term. It has this visual image of the spatial gyrations. The cases swing, I don't. Thank you for not using that term. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: You said once, we must never lose sight of the fact that the law has a moral foundation. And we must never fail to ask ourselves, not only what the law is, but what the law should be. And I thank you for that. I think that that is a crucial reminder to us about the relationship between law and morality, and law and justice. My first question to you is, what did you learn from your early jobs that you find yourself using now or that just what did you learn? So you were in private practice. You were a professor. As I know, you were once State Senate Page, is that right? JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Right. I was not happy in school. They didn't have the term "homeschooling." So my parents thought it would be good for me to be the only page the Senate had ever had and put me in a smoke-filled room for four years. But I was teaching at a school for judges in the Netherlands in Europe, in most parts of the world. When you graduate from law school you have two choices, you're going to practice or you go into the government service and the judiciary. And we get into that. We're very fortunate that we have the Anglo American tradition where we choose judges from the ranks of practicing bar. But I was teaching at the school for judges in the Netherlands and they're very young people, just a couple years out of law school, for two or three days. And some young lady of one of the new judges raised her hand and she said, how can I be a good judge if I still have so much to learn about the world around me? And it was one of these moments where everybody's and expected some answer. And I said, you will never be a good judge unless you ask yourself that question ever day. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: That's wonderful. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: And part judging is to ask, why am I doing this? The law is a discipline, an ethic, a philosophy, a commitment that you always go back to first principles. Cardozo-- read The Nature of the Judicial Process. I know it's not terribly exciting in parts, but it's short. And Cardozo in the first paragraph of his book said, people ask judges how do they go about deciding a case? And for one's who's been a judge a long time, who's done it hundreds perhaps thousands of times, you'd think the answer would be easy. Nothing could be further than the truth. So you rely on all of your experience. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: So why does law matter and why do lawyers matter? JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Well, in the our country, in our heritage, in our tradition and it's our destiny and it's our purpose, we in part define ourselves as committed to the rule of law. And we're bound by this thing called the Constitution. Constitution, you can use the word with a capital C or small C. Capital C is the document that judges interpret-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Here it is. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: --that was hammered out in the summer of 1787. And after a month in Philadelphia, they had nothing, no federalism, no separation of powers, after a month. And Washington kept them there. You didn't walk out of the general. They would occasionally say the 18th century equivalent of we're out of here. And Washington would say please stay, gentlemen. You didn't walk out on the general. So that's 1787. In 1789 it's adopted. 1791 the Bill of Rights. So that's the Constitution with a capital C, the one lawyers interpret, the one that we're committed to, the one that we all support, the one that belongs, not to just do a bunch of lawyers and judges, it belongs to all of us and that defines us, defines us as a people. The constitution with a small C is the constitution that Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Harrington, Jacque [INAUDIBLE] used to describe the small-C constitution-- the sum total of manners, mores, customs, traditions, morality, ethics of the people. The closer the two come together, the stronger we are. It's the small-C constitution, who we are, what our culture is, how we behave, that the rest of the world watches, considers, weighs, when they're thinking about what the United States means and what freedom means. Now we're maybe getting a little bit off the track. We have a duty to ourselves and to the rest of the world to show that this small c constitution mirrors our big-C Constitution, not in a legalistic term, but in our sense that we have a commitment. Aristotle gave-- I reread his politics two summers ago I think, and Aristotle gave democracy a low grade as did Plato. They had the list of possible forms of government. And he gave democracy a pretty low mark as a desirable form of government. And in re-reading it, my conclusion was he thought that democracy did not have the capacity to mature. And that's our destiny to prove him wrong. And we'll get into law in a minute, but the other-- my granddaughter is the ballet dancer with the New York City Ballet. She's is still in high school. And she was dancing in Chautauqua, which Westerners have never heard of. It's near Buffalo, New York. And she'd won a choreography, so you go to see your grandchild. And they had as a seminar being in ancient Greece. Periclean Athens roughly 500 BC. And they said, would you be on the panel? And I said, yeah, OK, if you can afford my hourly rate. I didn't know what to say, these were real Greek scholars. And I said, would the Greeks think we were free and would we think the Greeks were free? DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Such an interesting question. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: And I said just in case somebody from the National Enquirer is here, I know men only, slavery, I know, I know. But we wouldn't think of the Greeks as free because we think of in freedom in terms of individual rights. And the Greeks had some of this, Antigone makes her point of conscience. But for the Greeks, freedom was the capacity and the duty to engage in rational civic discourse to plan the destiny of your people. And the Greeks had-- it required the Athenians-- had a required oath that every citizen at the age of 18, male only, had to take and that was-- it's a very beautiful oath, and it is, we swear that we will engage in civic discussions and in rational conversation to the in Athens being more free, more beautiful, and more safe for our children than it is for us. And Athens failed because the Greeks were not faithful to that oath. And we have to think about our civic duty. That's where the law can be an example. That's where we can make a difference. When you're in law school, you're learning a language. It's the language of the law. One of us in my generation can pick up a telephone and talk to a lawyer a continent away and two generations removed and we've never met, but in a sense we know each other because we speak the common language. We all had contracts in the first year, torts. We can talk about curriculum later. And we have this bond, this tie, this kinship, this common purpose, and this is the language of the law. And the language of the law has a restraint and a discipline and a heritage and an elegance and a grammar and a logic that's different from the civic discourse, different from the political branches, not better not worse, different. And we can't expect everyone to talk in the language of the law. The world be a boring place if that were true. But that's what you're here for. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Is there one language of the law that's universal or are they distinctive for each country? JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Well, as my remarks earlier indicated, in my view, the verdict on freedom is still out. The verdict on the rule of law is still out in half of the world. And I was thinking about it as I was walking through today. I sometimes teach law and literature and one thing for corrections, you just have to read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solschenizyn. And Solschenizen is one of my favorite authors. Later in life, he did some rather strange things, but-- Harvard, is there a charter day speech? The charter day speech? He was the speaker at Charter Day? DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Yes. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Which, Harvard thinks is, like, the Nobel Prize or something. And he was the speaker. So I was in California at the time. This is pre-internet, fax machine. So I waited for a couple days to get his speech. This was my great hero. And I finally got a copy of it. It was in the New York Times. And I was so disappointed that he attacked the West for its legalistic frame of mind, for its legalistic perspective. And he said something like any civilizations that defines itself in legal terms does not understand the tissues of humanities, something like that. And I was terribly disappointed. I couldn't figure it out. And after a couple days, I figured out, you know, law to him means something very different. And as you move roughly eastward from the United States, and I'm afraid westward as well, the law becomes more remote, more threatening, more authoritarian. In Solschenizen's experience, his history and his culture, his heritage, I'm afraid to say still, the law was a [INAUDIBLE], a command, a decree, a mandate. For us it's a promise. It's a promise. It's a promise that if you commit yourself to an ethical course of conduct and to being a good citizen in the community, you will be free. It's very different. So law is an expectation. So the idea of law is different. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: You made a reference to the curriculum, so I can't resist. What do you remember from your time at Harvard Law School? Did you learn anything that you use? What did you study? What can you say about that? JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: I remember a lot of the cases I had in law school better than the cases I've written. That's true. Ask me all about Hawkins versus McGee. Palsgraf. What is it, the train starts, the door closes, the conductor pushes the passenger, the drops the thing. And then the firecracker explodes and the scale falls and hits Ms. Palsgraf. At least in my generation, you tend to think of legal problems in the context of the courses you had. I have checked with my classmates, class of '61. None of us ever heard of the term environmental law. Didn't hear the phrase. Didn't know the phrase. And I'll write what I think is a statute of limitations case, civil procedure, little box. And no, no, no, it's an environmental law question. We had agency. I couldn't have practiced law without it. Go in the library and look up and see what agency it is. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: It's mentioned the beginning of the corporations class. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: It's scattered to the birds on corporation and torts. I mean, I just couldn't practice in a small business practice without knowing the law of agency. Now, I looked-- I was here half an hour early and I asked if they would get me course book of the '61 course offering at Harvard. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Curriculum, wow. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: No criminal procedure, which did not surprise me. Rehnquist and O'Connor had never heard of criminal procedure. Scalia had. And I had not, from law school, because they didn't teach it when Nino and I were here. But we were in the Academy and we heard it. So Rehnquist and O'Connor would think of every, what we would call criminal procedure cases, which we think of as a unified [INAUDIBLE], as a case of federalism. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Oh, wow. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Should the federal court-- because in a way, this helped me in my practice because I did some criminal work and I taught con law. And when I was here, Gideon wasn't decided when I was here. Miranda wasn't when I was here. So these cases came out in the '60s. And in the curriculum, constitutional law professors around the country had all these criminal procedure cases-- what we now call criminal procedure cases. And they went to the deans, and they said, this is too much. We can't do this. And almost the uniform response was to have a course in criminal procedure. And in practice, since I taught this, and that was one of the reasons I thought I'd stick with constitutional law for a little bit longer because it didn't relate to my practice, was that it began to relate to my practice in the criminal procedure area. And I was hired as associate counsel in a number of criminal cases because Mapp, Escobedo, Miranda, even Gideon, were all [INAUDIBLE]. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Did you geget-- were you called on? Was it all Socratic method in your classes? JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Some yes, some no. You don't know who your role models until years later. You look back say, that was a role model. I had certain judges who were role models and certain professors. When I taught, I consciously, and in some cases unconsciously very much admired Clark Byse. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: He thought he was the model for Paper Chase. I don't know if he was, but he thought he was. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: And really Ben Kaplan, if the student would ask a question which was really off the point and not a very good question, he would never put the student down. He would turn the question, well, now that would-- and he would make the question really relevant. He would make the student [INAUDIBLE]. And the other-- [LAUGHTER] And a gentleman, which I think is very important. And the other was Donald Turner, and he taught agency. And in those days agency, was required first year half year course. And the dean would call the professor in and say, now Professor Turner, the good news is you have antitrust class at the time you want, the bad news is you have to teach agency. It was scattered to the birds on the faculty. And so I had Turner for agency, and he talked in something of a monotone, sounded colorless until you listened to what he was saying. Some in the class would say, oh, we've got agency with Turner. I'd say, no, no, listen, listen. He was a master of the Socratic method. He would ask a question-- coming in to a 50 minute class. He'd come in and he'd ask a question, generally relating to the case. Then he'd just ask a series of questions. And then the 50 minutes, the bell is about to ring, then he'd to ask the same question he asked at the first. But the whole world had changed. It was like a sonnet. It was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. So I tried, I tried. My class was 6:00 to 9:30 Monday nights with a 20 minute break. And you can't sustain the Socratic method, or I couldn't at least, for that whole three hours. So I would, for maybe an hour 10, an hour 20, be able to do it, then afterwards I'd have to switch. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: You've mentioned criminal procedure. You have actually been very vocal about criminal justice. You have made important statements on solitary confinement, on overcrowding in prisons. Could you talk to us about what is the role of the courts in criminal justice and what's the role of the rest of us? Many people think that there are real problems with our criminal justice system. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Churchill said, a society is measured by how it treats the least deserving of its citizens. And I wanted to see-- the 1961 catalog was about that like that. And so I'd asked your office for the current catalog and it's like the man who ordered room service on the Titanic and he said, I wanted ice but this is too much. I felt just like that. And I wanted to see Dean, if you had courses on corrections, and so forth. In my era, lawyers, judges, law professors, law students, were fascinated with the guilt or innocence process. And that would include later, post conviction, release, for 28 USC, 2254, 2255, habeus corpus. But after the trial process, then the conviction process, post conviction, we throw away the-- corrections are for someone else. Lawyers not interested in corrections at all. And everyone thought someone else was looking at it. In California, my home state, we had close to 200,000 prisoners a year. And now we're down to 120,000. In the federal system you have over 200,000 in prison. In pretrial release, pretrial diversion, and probation is I think, maybe in the federal system, I guess it's around 50,000. I'm not sure. And we don't pay any attention to it. Everybody thinks, well, we think this is for the lawyers or the people in sociology. But as A, as you indicated are I think rightly, Dean, I think it's everyone's job. But it' particularly, I think we have to step up. And I was going to look to see if you had courses in corrections. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Inadequate. A little bit, a little bit. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: And solitary confinement, people are in there for years. When I was in the Army they gave us training, because I was in a unit that had combat stuff, training for it. And so they locked us up in a cell and some of us were tortured just very slightly. And after four hours in the cell, I was going made. These people have been 40 days, 40 months, 20 years in solitary confinement. It drives men mad. And we don't even think about it. And in California, the cost of per prisoner is about $35,000 a year per prisoner. And the Prison Guards Association, the Correctional Officers Association is the strongest lobby in the state of California. And they have planned prisons to go up the Central Valley and the Northern Valley in small towns so the prison guards are a large part of a population and they can control who is the legislator, who's elected. And they are against shorter sentences and this is sick. This is sick. And we've got to do something about it. I tell people $30,000 per inmate and if we have to use that cost calculus in order to get people to think about a human dimension, that's fine with me. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Build a coalition. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: We'll go that route if we have to. It seems to me it used to be judges had considerable discretion in re-sentencing. We had a judge in San Diego, very fine district judge, and he went out of his own pocket-- this is years ago before the sentencing guidelines, and before mandatory minimums, which I think are terrible --and he went into the hardware store and he bought the biggest keys he could get. And if he gave probation to a prisoner, he'd say, here's this key. Now, if you violate, I'm going to take away this key. And this was something these people could-- it was visual. And people years later said, I have that key on my bookshelf or my mantle. But judges-- now it's all with the guidelines and so forth and we've had very few-- some judges have resigned. They said, we're not going to do this. But they don't get much attention. But it's everybody's job. And I think it's just an ongoing injustice of great proportions, and it seemed to me and one of my speeches at the ABA some years ago, m was my subject. Our sentences in the United States are eight times longer than for equivalent crimes in England the Western Europe eight times longer. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: We the most incarcerated nation in the history of nations. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: And this is because you're not going to save $33,000 a year if you do it right because you're going to have to have a lot of supervision and rehabilitation, training and so forth. But we've got to look at this. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Your focus on dignity I mentioned before. What does dignity mean to you? JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: Well if you're writing an opinion under the due process clause, 5th or 14th Amendment and liberty, you can't just repeat the word. You have to find a synonym to explain. And it's not just for stylistic interest so that you're avoiding repetition that puts the reader to sleep. It's in order to elaborate meaning. And in the European Convention on Human Rights, the word dignity is used. And it seems to me to sum up the meaning of human individual worth. And so, it's a word that seems to me is helpful. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: And there's an equality to mention there. The people have equal dignity. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: That's is correct. Equal protection and liberty under the due process clause, have a linkage that hasn't been thoroughly explored. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: But I think you are exploring it in your opinions. And that's very, very powerful. Well you mentioned opinions, who is the audience? Who is the ideal audience for your opinions? Who are you writing for? JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: Well, you write an opinion differently if it's railroad reorganization or human rights. You have a different audience. And one of the purposes of an opinion is to see if the opinion can produce and garner allegiance to what the law does. And you write these opinions, you don't know how they're going to be received by the Academy and by the profession and by people that are interested in the court. And so if you write an opinion like Lawrence versus Texas or in the free speech area. I think you should write it so a broad general audience can know and understand the reasons the Supreme Court gave for its first decision. The press is pretty good about saying what we did. And to cover the Supreme Court, they like it because they have about three months to do all the background. They have pictures of the litigants and they can maybe even write up what they think will be their article, depending on the way it goes. So the press does a pretty good job. When I was first on the court we had the flag burning case, Texas versus Johnson. And a couple days before that the case came out, I thought, you know, people are going to be really mad at the court about this. And I think I'll write a little something. So I wrote a short opinion, very short, completely concurring, joining Justice Brennan's opinion wholly. I wasn't trying to detract from it. But I said, it's poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it contempt. And I wrote this short thing. And I told my colleagues, I said, this is going to be very controversial. And I think 80 senators got to the floor of the Senate and protested of this decision. and the first President Bush took the week off and went to flag factories. So I wrote this little thing. And I was in California to see my children who were still there at that time and going to school. And I had lunch with the two boys. We met at the Universal House of Pancakes or something. Some guy came by and said, are Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. And I thought this is some C-Span junkie that watches the budget hearings or something. And he said, I can see you're with your family. But he said, I'm a solo practitioner like you were in Northern California in Ukiah. It's a very small town. And the reason I'm there is to be with my dad. I lost my mom years ago. But this is my hometown and my dad's there. And he never comes into my office. And the San Francisco Chronicle reported the flag burning case. And the day afterwards he came in and there were a lot of people in my office. And he slams the newspaper down, and he said, you should be ashamed to be a lawyer. And he said, the reason was he was a prisoner of war for 2 and 1/2 years in Germany. And the prisoners would get little bits of red, white, and blue cloth and they make a little flag and pass it around for morale. And then the guards would find it and they'd make another one. And he said, he was infuriated with your decision. So he said, I gave him a copy of what you wrote because it's short and written for general understanding of what the Constitution means to all of us. And he came back two days later and said, you can be proud to be a lawyer. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Wow. Wow. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: So that was one that worked for one person. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: But you have actually talked explicitly about the educational role that the court plays, that the court is an educator. And maybe because you have been an educator your whole life, you see that. But is it to opinions? Are there other ways in which the court can be an educator? JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: Well I suppose, in part again, we're talking about civility. We have to be an example of the fact that you can have a disagreement and resolve in a rational, principled way. I think it was Carlyle said that, if in an argument you give way to anger, your principal interest and in defending yourself, not the truth. And so you have to have a very professional way of disagreeing with your colleagues. When you try cases-- I had a small practice. And so I went to court all the time. And you're going to have to argue with some judges. Some of the judges that were my role models were wonderful judges. And I would make sure the jury was out before I argued with them because the jurors were-- but there will be some judges who are not going to listen to you. And when I teach sometimes, I want questions and they're all hesitate to raise their hand. And I said, now how many of you want to practice law? And they raise their hand. How many of you would have a state bar certificate of admission on your wall in your office? Raise their hand. And then my next question is, how many of you want a little sticker under that, but I'm embarrassed and shy about arguing in front of judges? That's what you're here for. That's what you're here for. And the Socratic method-- it's my pleasure to talk with teachers and i talk about the Socratic method. And there are many variations of it. One is, whatever the student says, I disagree. And the other is, the second is, and that's an abuse of the method somewhat. And Socrates abused his own method, because his method was, he had a point of view. And he would ask you questions to bring around to his point of view. But the beautiful, the golden, measure is, neither of us know the answer and we ask questions to each other in order to find the truth. And it seems to me perfectly legitimate for professors to use all three of those methods. And it's not important for the student to know-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Which ones. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: --but it is very important for the professor to know which one. So I think this is the Socratic method. Because we impliedly more I think, to the world that we teach you skills of efficacy. But do we? I mean do we have a course in how to have-- in part you do that in the Socratic method and you learn the art and the discipline and the necessity of respectful but forceful presentation of your arguments. And you do that do that in the classroom. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: You mentioned a moment ago role models of judges that you've had. Who not alive, who not on the court as a Supreme Court justice, was someone you admired? JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: I knew Earl Warren very well as a young boy can know an older man in that kind. He didn't phone me for advice every day. Our family knew when we knew his children. His daughter and my sister were best friends. And Noah, Professor Feldman has as a book called The Scorpions, which is a wonderful book. And it shows how unhappy the court was with Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson. And Warren had this wonderful way about-- Warren would be elected governor in the primaries in California. In those days, you could run it Democrat, Republican. He won both. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Hard to imagine anyone doing that right now. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: And when the scorpions were at it, President Truman appointed Vinson. He knew the Court was unhappy. And he appointed to good old, friendly, poker-playing Fred Vinson, whom everybody liked. But he was not effective as Chief Justice because Jackson and Frankfurter, Douglas didn't respect his legal ability. So it got worse. And so then, Warren-- can I tell this one story about Warren? DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Please, please. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: This was repeated to me by people who were there. Warren runs with Dewey as vice president in 1948. Loses. Then in 1952, Warren wants to run for president. And he wins the California Republican primary. And by law, the California delegation is required to vote for Warren on the first ballot. And the big tussle is between Eisenhower and Taft. So Warren is in between and maybe would be, what, the dark horse or the settlement candidate or whatever. So the train leaves from Sacramento, California, with the delegation, the California delegation. and Warren's on the train at this point. Unbeknownst to Warren, a young man is going up and down the train and that man gets off at the train station and goes to Eisenhower's suite. He said, my name is Richard Nixon and California is yours on the second ballot. Warren was infuriated and leaves word that he may go home, may bolt the party. California, lot of electoral votes there. So the arrangement is Warren will come by and see Eisenhower. And Eisenhower said, that if Eisenhower was president , Warren would get the first appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Wow. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: Vinson suddenly dies and people are congratulating Warren around Sacramento. But the phone doesn't ring. One day, two days. Well, you know the way this works, the staff start talking to each other. And they say, well you know, we didn't say Chief Justice. Warren said, that's right. But you said the first. And that's how Warren was Chief Justice. But I admire him very much. Hugo Black, I never met him. I admired his jurisprudence very much. Black missed Tobacco Road by jut a hop. Self- educated man, and read deeply in philosophy and political theory. And I always thought was a brilliant justice. Harlan, both Harlans, but the second. I'm somewhat disappointed, one of my disappointments on the Court is I can't get my colleagues to tell me about my predecessors, Brennan, Blackmun, White wouldn't tell me much about what my predecessors were like. I couldn't quite get a picture. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: You mentioned Scorpions. It seems to be a very different kind of camaraderie on the Court right now. How do you get along with your colleagues? How you manage looking at someone when you've had fierce disagreements? JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: Well of course, there's a difference in a personal and a professional disagreement. You're trained to disagree. That's your duty. It's something you have to do. But you have to do it in a proper way. If you don't know the problem with this ability tends to go. What we like to say is, that I'll go in and say, Nino, this case, you don't understand evidence. You're ruining criminal procedure. And remember, we're going with to dinner with Maureen tonight at 6:30. It's important to have the different-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: You can do both. JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: And especially in the practice of law, especially in the practice of law. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: First case I argued, opposing counsel asked me afterwards did I want to go out for a drink? And I thought, I hate you. Why would I do that? And he saw the look at my face. And he said, you're going to see a lot more of me than you are of your client. And it was a good point. It was a good point. I'm going open it up for questions in a minute, but I have a few more. You travel a great deal you teach and speak around the world. How does this affect what you do? How does it affect how you think? You also travel back to California. How does that influence your outlook? JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY: Well again, you're influenced by the world around you. And travels help me. I used to go once a year to China to teach there. And one time I was being given a dinner, I'll tell you later, I really worked to help started a law school in China because the curriculum was just [INAUDIBLE]. Law in China and most other places in the world is undergraduate. There are only, what, five countries in the world with graduate LAW schools? South Africa, US, Canada, Japan-- I'm missing one. So undergraduate, most places in the world. They have a graduate school where you can do-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Advanced studies. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: --maybe your MA. But your law degree is undergraduate. And this is that way in China. And their curriculum just broken. It would be is if you had to pass the bar to memorize the stature the limitations of 50 states. Who cares? And so the provosts and the deans agreed with me in the '80s that they should reform the curriculum. We had a meeting with, I think, maybe 10 law schools, 12 law school dean. But, I have to say this gracefully, China is no stranger to academic intransigence. And the faculty weren't going to change their courses. So our solution was to just bypass it and have a graduate school. And say it's in Shenzhen, in the Transnational, School of Transnational Law. And in China everything's numbered. China is a billion four, without the billion, they're the second biggest country in the world They're the second biggest country in the world without the billion. So everything in China is numbers. And for this new law school, they were going to have 150 students. For the opening class, then add 150 each year, until they had [INAUDIBLE]. And it was like the US. They would take music majors, art majors, physicists, whatever, and for 150 places, I think they had something like 9,000 applications. And they weeded them down. And finally they took 500 to do interviews. And they had standard interview questions, and one of the interviews was, why did you want to go to law school? And the Chinese love movies that are in English, UK, or Hollywood. And any number said they were influenced to go to law school by a movie. And so I thought, well, this will be Twelve Angry Men or Witness for the Prosecution. No, no. Legally Blonde. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Harvard Law School. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: And I'd never heard of the thing. Mary got it on Netflix and we watched it and it's actually pretty good. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: It's actually good. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: It's a pretty good. But I taught there. It's in Shenzhen, on the mainland, but just north of Hong Kong. But I could see why because these students realize at the school was a new venture. It was somewhat threatening to them. They were taking a chance and they related to Reese-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Reese Witherspoon, yes. Very good. Very good. And had a pink laptop too, right? So let's start to see some hands up. I have one more that I just want to ask is, Thomas Jefferson ones that I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending to too much liberty than to those attending to too mall a degree of it. And I wondered about that. Is liberty the most important? And do inconveniences-- take for example, some people say that our freedom of speech leads to a coarse public culture, because you have to harden your skin against-- JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Well I frankly think-- look, the Court is often thought of as embracing moral relativism, moral relativism is not only disagreeable, but antithetical to my own philosophy, my personal philosophy. And relativism leads to skepticism and skepticism leads to cynicism and cynicism is corruptive of human values. But how can I believe that and be on the-- oh, all movies are the same. All books are good. Anything you want to do is all right. Are you going to teach your children or do you teach your children that? Of course not. So this hypocritical? No, no. What we're saying is, the government doesn't make the choice. But you have to. And this is part of our society. Now, I'll guarantee you, buy you a bottle of beer or whatever it is you drink, the next time you hear an interview of a movie that's lousy, a book that's trash, you'll say, well of course, there's a First Amendment right. The comment is, oh, there's a First Amendment-- I know that. It's trash. And so we have to understand the difference between the liberty the government gives you and your duties as a good person. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Just because there's a right doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Correct. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Hands. Please identify yourself and ask your question. AUDIENCE: Thank you for coming to talk with us Justice Kennedy. I'm Harry [INAUDIBLE]. I'm a 3L from Baltimore, Maryland. In your time on the Court, you've written a lot of opinions where you were the decisive judge, this swing judge. And in some of those-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: We don't use that phrase. In some of those, you didn't actually write the opinion, but you've been the important fifth vote in a lot of cases. In 50 years, in 100 years, if you could only be remembered for one of those cases, which one would it be? JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: The one I'm writing now. That's a fair question. I'm not sure. It takes time. You hope the time will be a gracious judge. I'm not sure. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: You will be remembered. That we know. Other questions. There's a mic over here. Can you-- Yes. And maybe stand up. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: I just might say, these big cases. It's odd, the way our time is. We will spend a lot more time in terms of hours and in terms of writing some of the technical opinions. Some good concurrences or dissents that don't see the light of day than we will in these big cases. We run a very short time segment. You mentioned the marriage case, the gay marriage case, I think that was argued in April-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: It was late. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: --when we had other opinions. And I had a really tough, I think it was a patent opinion I was going crazy with. And so, we just don't have much time. So you hope it works out. Let me tell you, I know you're busy in law school. I don't see too many bags under your eyes. You're not studying quite hard enough. But I know how-- [LAUGHTER] --how busy you are. I know that. Please, my guarantee is you'll be busier in private practice. Now's the time, in which you can talk to your professors and you can think about interesting cases, questions like your colleague asked. Now's the time to do it. It's very important for you to be in law school. AUDIENCE: Thank you again, Justice Kennedy, for being here. My name's [INAUDIBLE]. I'm a 1L, and my question's about the duty of public officials outside the judiciary. So as I understand, your Obergefell opinion, you claim that new insights into the nature of marriage require states to issue marriage licenses in accord with this alternative version of marriage or understanding of marriage. And I can understand a similar case, probably more attractive to those of us who think that rational norms guide the exercise of sexual autonomy like the economic autonomy. That would be that, new insights into the nature of human life require states to take steps to stop abortions. My question would be, in either these cases, would you say that there are any state or federal officials with authority to act according to her own judgment of the truth of new insights or of the soundness of the Court's constitutional interpretation or would it be illegal for any federal official or state official to enforce, or to act according to the old understanding of life in the Constitution that she still judges to be the truth of the matter? Thank you very much. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: The question was generally, what about-- if I can rephrase it in a fair way, what is the duty of a public official if he or she cannot in good conscience and consistent with her own personal and religious beliefs enforce a law that they think is morally corrupt? How many judges do you think resigned in the Third Reich? Three. Great respect, it seems to me has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they think is morally wrong in order to make in order to make a point. However, the rule of law is that as a public official, in performing your legal duties you're bound to enforce the law. And it's difficult sometimes to see whether or not what you're doing is transgressing your own personal philosophy. This requires considerable introspection. And it's a fair question that officials can and should ask themselves. But certainly in an offhand comment, it would be difficult for me to say that people are free to ignore a decision of the Supreme Court. Lincoln went through this in the Dred Scott case. And these are difficult moral questions. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Next one. Where is the microphone? JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: In the law, you have an ethical obligation. I did some domestic relations work. In California to the community property was on the table. So you had accountants and there was a big, big legal fees and so forth. I had a client come and he was one of my good business clients. He had a very substantial business, and a sad divorce, which we couldn't seem to heal. And he said, now, you ask for custody of the kids and then we'll get a better property settlement agreement. I said, I won't do that. He said, well, you're my lawyer. You have to do it. Man, you go. I'm not doing it. It seemed to me that this was just wrong. I wasn't going to put the kids happiness and welfare and good relations with both of their parents up on the block. And you just have to do this, as an attorney. You do have an ethical undertaking. I seem to think this idea of ethical counseling is disappearing from the practice to some extent. The worst case I had was a tremendous sum of money on either side. And we had [INAUDIBLE], and it was settled. And we had documents that had have to be signed. It was in my office with deeds and corporations and so forth. It was all settled. And they were the middle of this settlement and the husbands to the wife, and I'll be by Friday to pick up the banjo. And she said, no, the banjo is mine. And she it was my Uncle Fred's. He said, but he gave it to you because I'm the one that plays the banjo. So pretty soon, the attorneys looked at each other. This settlement thing is going down over the banjo? And we took a recess and attorney on the other side, we agreed we could buy them five banjos. So we finally ended up, we had joint custody of the banjo. So you can work these things out. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Travelling banjo. OK. Here's one right here. AUDIENCE: Justice Kennedy. Thank you for coming. I'm George [INAUDIBLE], 1L. You mentioned earlier in your talk-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: A little louder. AUDIENCE: Sorry. You mentioned earlier in your talk about judges learning about the world around them. How do you and your colleagues go about that? Thank you. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Well, it's pretty hard. We're in part, in a different age. I was looking at cross examination in a personal injury case not long ago. It was an automobile accident, intersection accident. And the attorney-- it was a deposition. Oh, no, no. This was a trial. And the attorney said, and what gear were you in at the moment of impact? And the answer was, Gucci sweats and Reeboks. I mean, your generation just doesn't use the term gear anymore. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: OK, there's one over here. We'll do both of you. AUDIENCE: I'm David. I'm a 1L as well. Thank you for coming to speak to us. Five years later from Citizens United, as we approach a next year's election, I'm curious if you can stand by some of the assumptions that underlied your opinion there, if money's really not a corrupting force and if corporations are really people? Thank you. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Yes. Certainly in my own view, what happens with money in politics is not good. And in some traveling, my questions are, what happens in England and Switzerland and Europe with campaign advertising? And there's different answers, none of them completely satisfactory. In part, the election cycle is shorter. In part, you have multi-member districts. I'm not sure there's any good answer. But remember the government at the United States stood in front of our court and said that it was lawful and necessary of an act to ban a book that was written about Hillary Clinton. They said it would apply to a book written about Hillary Clinton in the prohibited period of three months before the election. That can't be right. And I wasn't surprised that the New York Times was incensed that their little monopoly affect our thinking was being taken away. I was surprised, Dean, at how virulent of their attitude was. Because the last time I looked, the New York Times was a corporation, and this meant that the Sierra Club, the Chamber of Commerce in a small town couldn't take out an ad. It seemed to me that there was a tremendous speech problem here. The result is not happy. It does seem to me, one things is the disclosure. You live in the cyber age. You need to wait until three months after the election for a report on who gave the money. It could be done in 24 hours. The voters don't like the people who are funding? Don't vote for them. That's not working the way it should. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Right exactly. If I could have a follow up. Your opinion says, rightly, there can be disclosure and we have the technology to do it, but we have a political lock jam. So the FEC, the FCC, the SEC, all have the authority to require the disclosure of campaign contributions and none of them have. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: And it goes back to, we have this hostile, fractious dialogue. Look at the names of some over TV shows-- Hardball, Crossfire. We have to [INAUDIBLE]. You asked about traveling. Not to many years ago, I went to Poland and was talking to, again, to the law faculty at the University of Warsaw. And it was September, and the students were going to arrive at the following week. But I was talking to faculty, and then people came in and whispered, and they said, oh, Justice Kennedy, they said, our incoming law students are here for orientation. Would you talk to them? So there are about 80 or 90. So I said, I'm Justice Kennedy, here to talk to you about the Court. And a student raised his hand and he said, you know, federalism is very important. But money goes to the federal government and then back to the states with conditions on it. Doesn't this undermine federalism? These are basically high school seniors, there for their first week of college. And so we talked about that. And another student said, separation of powers is very interesting, Congress checks the president, the president checks the Congress. Who checks the courts? And then a student raised her hand, and she said, now, John Marshall, Chief Justice John Marshall is very revered by the American judiciary. Were all of his decisions popular when he wrote them? And I said, stop. Wait a minute. [SPEAKING GERMAN] This is a trick. You've had all this prepared. And they said, no. They said, you don't understand. We have been studying your constitution since the Soviets left. We've been studying your constitutional history since the fourth grade. And I later told my wife that night, and the university president, I said, if I'd have had those questions in an American class, I would have said that's a great class. And this is what the rule of law, this is what the Constitution can mean. And later the provost told me, they said, the student was right, plus on the Soviets, if you want to be a doctor, an engineer, and architect, you couldn't do it. And some of the best minds in Poland were teachers. And you saw the products of those minds. So that's how important the rule of law is. There was one more over here somewhere. Yes. AUDIENCE: Justice Kennedy, thank you so much for speaking with us. My name's Robert. I'm a 1L. And I was just curious, we discussed a few books today. The Cardozo book, the Feldman book. I was wondering if there's any one or two particular recommendations you had for us as students, particularly busy, 1Ls tied up with contracts reading. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Oh, well, and I think The Visit by Durrenmatt is a play. It's magnificent. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, I've mentioned. And then standards, a Kafka, The Trial, is really a much more an allegory, a myth. But it really shows you the way most clients look at the legal system. Kafka, The Trial and Camus. L'Etranger and The Fall, written in different styles. Camus became confident enough that he didn't have to follow the Hemingway style like he did in DEAN MARTHA MINOW: The Stranger. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: L'Etranger. So he wrote The Fall, which is a great book about attorneys. And Billy Budd. And if you want to know about my generation, this was actually the '30s, but it was a carry over when I practiced law. Women-- when I went to this law school, there were five women in my class. And so if you want to read about the old boy network, literally and figuratively, but in a way of-- it had many strong features, read that James Gould Cousins The Just and the Unjust. It's a beautiful book. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: I want to tell you that in honor of your time on the Court, 10 members of the faculty have written essays about 10 of your opinions. And we will give you those essays that may not be as good reading as Camus or some of the others that you mentioned. Would everyone join me in recognizing the amazing-- [APPLAUSE] Thank you so much. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Dean.
Info
Channel: Harvard Law School
Views: 57,313
Rating: 4.7675543 out of 5
Keywords: Harvard Law School, Martha Minow, Anthony Kennedy, Supreme Court Of The United States (Court)
Id: ZHbMPnA5n0Q
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 65min 28sec (3928 seconds)
Published: Mon Oct 26 2015
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.