tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 15, 2015 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
region will backfire and will probably feel a lot of unrest like we have seen with the uprising. >> can i just ask you again if you want to comment about the overall impact. is it significant that all that the kurds have now gotten into the ballot box and elected this party that may be made up of pkk sympathizers but is not necessarily fully convergent the pkk? is this introduce anything interesting or is it probably too strong to be of some help of the the southeast southeast and the kurdish politics, is still very much the pkk has a major voice.
another outbreak of conflict. >> as i said, i think it's interesting and potentially a positive development will be made in the parliament. however, i. however, i am a little concerned that because of the uncertainty of where we're headed it could end up being off or not and will make that much difference. first, if we get a coalition clearly the price for that will be an end to the piece process. so it is great that you have these kurdish parliamentarians. and it is not just kurds. there are also other minorities who they have brought to their rainbow coalition introducing the level of diversity not
pursuing that these process there will be a limit to what the hbp can deliver to voters. there will be almost inevitably a kind of competition set up. and you may be seeing some of that play already secondly let's play out the other option option, the president succeeds in running out the clock and we go to new elections. his calculus to some degree has to mean that he will get you know, a majority and hopefully is a majority to carry out his own ambitions that we have described earlier. some of that will come half from the mhp vote going down
the the going down and going down so low that they don't make it in the parliament. you almost have to have that happen if you want to give to the 330 votes. get to the super majority. he could see them being tempted. you can imagine in the 2nd vote for five months from now your have the same kind of intensity. you might like it is higher turnout. turnout was quite high. you might have a lower turnout. you might be able to drive that vote down to 10.2 percent at which time the temptation to manipulate the election returns to keep them below 10 percent to become extremely high.
if you would end up with the result in which after having 80 kurdish parliamentarians in the parliament you have an election and suddenly there are zero kurdish parliamentarians? i think you can spin this out in ways that potentially our devastating on this issue and lead down a road to a lot of instability and potentially violence in turkey. i have several more questions particularly about the impact on kurdish foreign-policy of the syria question as well as with the us ought to be doing at this important but uncertain time in turkish history but i do want to go over to the audience and begin taking some questions. if you can keep it to a question, a very brief identification. we will try and take three in a row.
in the front row. >> let's talk, if the start, if you don't mind i like to hear what your have to say about the long-term. if you look at kurdish identity, throughout the region is just take money send troops across southern turkey, the remarkable response of the people oh my god. they are like are like us. we're the same. in turkish what the kurds call. [speaking in native tongue] and even the city hall says in turkish the city hall. if you see the flags, they are all kurdish. the question is do you see
the long-term let's say the scenario here have a disaster because let's say in an election they would get a zero do you see the kurds moving in a different direction? they clearly feel a strong sense of identity with the people just south. >> there was one in the 3rd row. >> i. my question i no that pray and finish the quran. do you see any change in the relationship between the muslim in the future and his relationship with the regime in egypt? >> mother we let him answer the 1st question why this kurdish question is going. the turkish republic stand up?
howie heading how we heading toward a much messier break up? >> i think they can for a few years. they asked us to look at the long-term. in the long-term we are dealing with a volatile situation here. with the president's response to the advance of kurdish forces in northeastern syria it is clear that he would rather see that area remain in isis dominated no man's land than to see the current successful. as the same logic that he had for withholding support perhaps because he was afraid of precisely what you described in terms of the reaction to the kr g forces arriving. when you think about it and long-term and think about the fragmentation we already
see in syria and my own view is the idea that syria is going to -- the syrian humpty dumpty will get put back together again, pretty hard to credit after the amount of killing a movement population. there's still potential for the fragmentation of iraq and certainly the emergence of the kr gg as potentially a pro state, proto- kurdish state, if you then layer on top of that an inability of the turkish political system to deal with this issue i think you have a combustible mix. >> to answer your question about egypt to my think we should approach it not as a bilateral issue with a transnational issue. i've always argued that the policies cannot interpret this within the nationstate
it has always been a muslim brotherhood oriented policy whether in syria jordan, egypt and is even trying to build from malaysia to the balkans. the trans- nationalist politician we will come quite rarely entered politics. i would not expect much to change. we know see hp is interested in mending ties with armenia, israel, israel, egypt and we know that they are quite hard-liners in that regard. all the pens on the outcome of elections, but we should never assume unless you want
the results of turkish elections, deeply committed elections, deeply committed to muslim brotherhood majoritarianism and all the muslim majority countries. >> thank you. >> go here 1st in the 3rd row. this german in the 4th row. >> i i have two questions. >> just one question. >> okay. what would be the reason of the election results? what do you think? >> thank you. >> am sorry. >> a short question.
have for a long time viewed the potential of the relationship between israel and turkey is kind of transcending. they continue to hope against hope that somehow the kind of strategic partnership of the 90s can be resuscitated. i suspect right now what you are seeing is a lot of caution in the face of imponderable and certainty. why say. why see anything when almost anything you say can and will be used against you. so i expect that they are just watching and waiting in trying to see what comes out of this and help they can get the relationship back on to more stable footing.
no matter what they say american officials, no matter what they say will be spun through the government propaganda machine. leading government figures. sure. turkey has always had some level of prejudice and stereotyping and marginalization, but i think especially since 2,009 we're at a stage where there is a constant pumping of hate and prejudice by leading government figures. the best way to prevent that would be
silence because no matter what you say it would be fueling the fire's fantasy medicator prejudice. i think it's prudent. >> i have to follow-up on that. 2009. pres. obama's presidency. i don't think he's been a pres. i don't think he's been a president that has been particularly forceful about speaking publicly about concerns you might have until recently. doesn't seem to need excuses what the president of the day after the election and making his toughest aiming at about the lack of turkish action on the border with syria and shutting it down to foreign fighters and financing, financing, your guesses that is probably unhelpful this.in time ever
was one for the americas to press. >> and i want to get back to the question. question. i don't want to let that get lost. i agree up to a. i don't think we should be commenting all of the coalition negotiations. we deal with one government at a time. i can't say the number of times but i i was ambassador turkey turks would come up and say your government that we had put into power somehow. but but we ought to let that process go on art sold and play itself out without any,
are you on the other hand it's not a bad thing at the present your attention to the concerns we have about the border. it's a real problem, and i think particularly at this time is not a bad thing for the pres. of the united states to be publicly articulating frankly for whoever emerges. i would be in favor of that. on your question the ravages of age make it hard for me to actually remember exactly what i had my mind more than decade ago were almost a decade ago. but luckily you can read a lot of the reporting that came out of the embassy i was there. you can do that. i can't. i still hold clearances. it clearances. it will be a security violation me to download.
but i think what you would see if you look through the reporting that we did there was a general sense about the prime minister's minister's personal growing authoritarianism in terms of his personality as well as some -- a phenomenon we saw the party itself that were troublesome and worrisome. see in the back of my distinguished successors whose reporting has also been made public. different kinds of elements. it was not unique. i think you asked why the us government do something about it. i think he put his finger on it. there's been a real wish part of policymakers in washington to see the turkey that they would like to see
as opposed to the one that actually exists. >> the administration doesn't console me much. >> try to make a short if you can. >> two days before the election when an election rally. given the sympathies, given the hot water is it going to be possible? >> pass it to the gentleman from you. >> i i like to get the of the ambassador. but i was selected of you
on turkish foreign policy. policy. syria and perhaps the emergence of a new policy in saudi arabia. >> sure. now, what we what we saw was 29 percent of the voters said that the bombing had influence the revolt. the bombing had a major effect. and in the months to come i think the security situation in the region will have a major impact on the future of both the piece process and turkey and in turkey and also on the nature of turkish kurdish relations in the region. we should i think will be prepared not only for
tension between turkey's kurdish population in the turkish state but also for what i call proxy wars within the kurdish community in turkey. we see a rising tension between the kurdish hezbollah pkk. we see a few assassinations. we see growing tensions intercommunal tensions. and these and these have transnational aspects that can spill over to neighboring territories of the clashes in the neighboring territories can very easily spill back over. keep in mind keep in mind we don't only have weapons and logistical support and money going both ways but we also have funerals back from the
fighting in iraq and syria. every time i kurdish] home and as to the fuel of intercommunal tensions. i think the kurdish peace process process and handling of this delicate situation should be a key priority. >> if you can focus a bit is it possible to see any real improvement in turkish policy in support of the us-led coalition? >> it's an interesting question, if i'm not sure
how the girl points are. one of the things that is striking about the election the policy has been for quite some time terribly unpopular in turkey. it has never been a popular policy. i have even seen some speculation in the turkish press that the syria policy we have focused on the ambitions and the economy there is some speculation that the syria policy is partially responsible for some of what transpired the election. so i'm not really sure. i think you could probably argue with the impact of that will be on syrian policy. on the one hand i believe turkey and the governing leadership is going to be
primarily focused and work for the next few months while they sort out the politics. on the one hand that might argue against any activism in syria. on the other hand they going to have the kind of interim government in place until the sorts out, and you're going to have trying to continue to exert incrementally his presidential authority. and so it's not unheard of in these kinds of situations for an external crisis to be tempting as a way of helping resolve the internal political debate. debate. i think one can imagine it going either way. >> let me just ask too big institutions and movements traditionally this seemed to have been quite important.
one is the military and whether anything is happening in the military that is significant, meaningful way that we had to keep eyes on in the coming weeks and months particularly as the uncertainty in these coalition politics plays itself out. the 2nd is what is called the state, the movement inside of turkey. that is his offense event campaign to crush all remnants of the movement within turkey. on the turkish military side
i think this was a tactical acceptance of coming back in the politics as the short-term outline. of course outline. of course what this might bring in the middle long-term is anybody's guess vis-à-vis the election results come i think now that he seems to be losing his single-handed grip on power this could possibly give the military relative upper hand in the tactical alliance. now, the community and elections to live i have to comment on that for the 1st time ever if i'm not mistaken six candidates associated. they did not receive a huge
percentage of the vote and one comment after the election was the result can actually undermine conspiracy theories and people could simply say the so-called terrorists at controlling everything in turkey was actually just a couple of hundred thousand votes which is yet another reflection of the inability to deal with such a small interest group in turkey. so the results of the elections were a mixed result heard on the one hand it showed that the community does not necessarily have massive support, but at the same time it is also kind of undermining the conspiracy theory that they are everywhere and have infiltrated turkish states.
>> i would just say that i think the turkish military come although it remains one of the largest militaries in nato emerges from the last decade really a shadow of itself. one has to really have some doubts about what the exact capabilities of the turkish military are. it is hard to imagine a military that had over 100 general's was indicted and jailed, some of them now being released our convictions overturned, is his very hard to imagine such a military having a great deal of capability. the soviet military and the aftermath of the stalinist purges. purges. you know, you move that significant level of leadership and it's hard not to have considerable effects. we will know a little bit more at the end of the summer when the supreme military council meets and we see what military leadership emerges.
and what kind of you they have. i agree that the military has no love for the movement because they see that even more as the authors of bali my case all these series of conspiracy trials which laid waste to the military. what they do in that post kind of parallel state environment remains to be seen. particularly if you start to get a lot of violence. i think the military was quite shocked by the results and distal trying to absorb that and absorb what that
means for them and for turkey. i think it's another one of these very big uncertainties that is up and i think we're just going to have to see what it means overtime. >> let me try and get very rapid yes or no responses. eric mentioned the corruption scandals that occurred at the end of 2013 and 2014. they managed to bury those. those investigations going forward allegedly. the former president was in favor of having as ministers, investigations continue. ..
p. could be the ministers kind of going forward investigation but the investigations will not be part of the coalition agreements. since party groups according to the constitution are not allowed to make binding decisions on these investigations so the parties could simply say it's up to the individual deputies to decide and in the new parliament if the majority of the deputies decide to send the foreign ministers to the constitutional courts to be tried then what can
we do? so this could then up -- end up standing for ministers constitutional clerks and this would be outside of the court. >> i think the president is going to it do anything and everything he can to keep any of this from happening. i don't think he wants people replaying all the tapes of him telling bill to hide the money and telling his sister what to do with it. i don't see that happening. >> one file quick question. does he survive to the end of his first term as president? >> i would say yes but now he has the chance of not winning the second round. >> we have come to the end of the session. please join me in thanking our two terrific panelists. [applause]
"washington journal" a look at the future digital currency known as bitcoin. a group of law professors discuss whether there should be changes to have the supreme court operates. >> host: joining us from new york city is nathaniel popper reporter for the new york times and out with his first book called "digital gold" bitcoin and the inside story of the misfits and millionaires trying to reinvent money. nathaniel popper thanks for joining us in "washington journal" this morning. >> guest: thank you so much for having me. >> host: you write for the near times in a cover business issues. what made you want to write about bitcoin? >> guest: you know frankly i resisted at myself for a while. it seemed like some sort of pet
rock type of thing that was rising up and that i could just ignore. i was covering finance at the time i first began writing about this and actually my first story back in 2013 was about the twins who are famous from the facebook story and at this point in early 2013 really nobody with the name or reputation had attached themselves to bitcoin. they came forward and i wrote a story about their massive holdings of bitcoin at that point. they were something like $10 million and a response to the story was just so incredible that it kind of made me sit up and think about what this tapped into, what this idea of some kind of new money tapped into. it was really back that got me started thinking more about it and it was another year before decided to write a book about it
created a good decision. >> host: lead us through just a bit. he said the subtitle is bitcoin and the inside story of the misfits and millionaires trying to reinvent money trying to reinvent money. how does bitcoin work and how does it reinvent our current currency? >> guest: well, the very basics of bitcoin still elude a lot of people including a lot of people in technology and finance and i think that's in part because bitcoin is a lot of different things. it's a software that makes a lot of different things possible and because it's a lot of different things that sometimes hard to understand you hear these different things about it so i like to think about it in the two simplest terms. this came out of the movement of people who were essentially trying to invent digital cash. with cash you can transact directly. you hand over cash in an
old-fashioned world and he don't need anybody else there to do the transaction. you hand over the cash and the transaction is over and no one knows that the two of you that the transaction happened. when money moved into the digital world you essentially always needed some third-party group who was there to move the money, to update everybody's records on both sides so there was a group of technologists who saw this and most of them are privacy activists. they realize that there was this loss of privacy when money moved into the digital realm. they began working to try to create something that was for the digital realm like cash so that was the simplest idea that inspired it. it makes that possible with bitcoin is this new software and a new kind of network that
allows money to be moved around much like e-mail allows messages to be moved around. if you have somebody's bitcoin address just like if you have somebody's e-mail address you can send them money anywhere in the world and it doesn't have the go through a third person. so that's the simplest way to imagine it. there are a lot of layers beneath that that notion of digital cash and e-mail for money is the way i like to restart. >> host: use talked about this is the currency and i.d. that was started in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007 in 2008 and in your book you write that the result of this complicated process was something that was simply that never previously possible and network that can create a move money without a central authority no bank, no credit card, no regulators.
it's been a number of years since the creation of the bitcoin movement. have federal regulators taken an interest in it? >> guest: for sure they have. a lot of this in 2013 took a few years for the software to really get going and for sure as heck not going it would not -- it was not living up to its grandest ambitions. that passage you cited it wasn't providing an alternative to central banks but it was surviving and it was becoming clear to regulators to central bankers to prosecutors that this was something new. it was a way to move things around without oversight from any single party. obviously whenever you have something moving around without any oversight regulators get worried. in the financial system banks
are really the frontline in law enforcement because they can oversee movement of money. so regulators began looking at this particularly hard in 2013. there were actually two senate hearings if i'm not mistaken in one week i think one right after you have there in which people from the fbi and the secret service and the doj all got up to talk about this. actually what was so surprising about that event was that most of the lawn oarsmen folks who were at that hearing said there are dangers with this new technology but it is interesting and they can be used for more than just lawbreaking. so let's sort of watch this and we are watching it very carefully. that one event probably gave as much of a boost to bitcoin as any event during its lifetime
and since then you have got people from a whole bunch of different regulatory agencies really trying to figure out how to deal with it but still trying to figure out what is it? we treat it like stocks, treat it like currency should we treat it like a commodity collection we treat it like a financial institution and i think a lot of that is still going on. one of the things it points to is this is something new. it doesn't necessarily fit into the old categories we have for the financial realm. >> host: nathaniel popper is her guess the author of the new book called "digital gold" bitcoin and the inside story of the misfits and millionaires trying to reinvent money. we invite you to the conversation (202)748-8000 in the eastern and central timezones 202-74-8800 for mountain and pacific timezones and if you are user equine you can call us (202)748-8002 and
we'd like to hear about that. a story in "the new york times" about one of the campaigns using bitcoin. this was "new york times" a couple of weeks ago. in accepting bitcoin rand paul raised fund-raising never known for its transparency may have just become even more secretive. in announcing his candidacy for president this week senator paul of kentucky waded into new waters when he said it would accept campaign contributions and that point of largely untraceable currency in amounts up to $100. interesting donors at rand paul.com are given three options for taking a comp brick -- making a contribution. while some candidates in california colorado new hampshire and elsewhere have started accepting bitcoins mr. paul a republican is the first presidential candidate to do so. in the age of wanting
transparency and presidential elections is a good thing the paul campaign is allowing bitcoin contributions? >> guest: i don't know that i'm qualified to say whether it's a good thing. i think probably the way it's being done within election politics right now, it's limited to relatively small sums so in that sense it's like somebody giving a 20 or 50-dollar bill to a candidate that's not necessarily like someone giving $10,000 of unmarked bills to a candidate. but i think the most notable element is at rand paul decided to do that on day one of his candidacy. it shows the degree to which the bitcoin technology and the movement that grew up around bitcoin has been driven by a lot of libertarian sentiment that is
also driving rand paul's candidacy. it drives home just how much bitcoin was a result of the anxiety and unhappiness they came on the financial crisis and also given rise to the popularity of libertarian candidates. this mission of central authority and that is so deeply embedded within bitcoin. there is suspicion again the federal reserve and central bank but also big wall street banks that were blamed for the financial crisis and bitcoin was really viewed as a system that could allow was to circumvent all of that and have the financial system that exists without those central authorities that would really be based and run by people who used it.
so one rand paul made that announcement on the day's candidacy was announced it was really a sign of how deeply intertwined bitcoin had to come with the rise of libertarianism after the financial crisis. >> host: we have calls waiting for nathaniel popper on the issue of "digital gold" bitcoin raid here is jim and columbia maryland. >> caller: hi yes, thank you and god bless c-span. you guys are great. you have been talking and large channel terms with government at an individual level and as an object in her myself opening my own business i went through the whole loan process and banking it was an absolute mess. why is it that we as people and as a society feel this need to regulate bitcoin just because we a vice regulated these things
likes why can't we just move on and look at different ways of doing it? there's a new form of kurianzi or whatever they want to call it it, why are we so determined to regulated and why does it need to be controlled? it doesn't make sense to me. it's so convoluted and makes so much headache and no sense. this seems like a much easier different way of doing things. is there reason it can't be done like that? >> guest: well i think there certainly are regulators who are trying to take a new approach with bitcoin. right now and over the last year the effort to regulate bitcoin has been led by the top financial regulator new york. he came up with something called the bit license which was his effort to create a new regime for new technology. the question of does this need to be regulated you know one of
the elements that is so strongly comes through in the story of bitcoin and such a theme in my book is that this new technology that allows money to move around drove home just how much money becomes involved. bitcoins history has been marked by enormous instances of hacking and theft and fraud and it has often come i think it's often served as a reminder why regulations come through in the first place. you have this universe in which people control their own money but oftentimes people controlling their money are less sophisticated so bitcoin makes it possible for you to control your own money with what's known
as a private key or password. if a hacker gains control of your computer and get that privacy they essentially have your money and that has happened many times. i would like to say that i think probably more people have lost money in bitcoin that made money using bitcoin. a lot of money has been made but a lot of people have lost money. and so you have unsophisticated people using their own money or when people stop using it themselves they have given their bitcoins to what are essentially bitcoin banks doubled their money for them. probably not too surprisingly those bitcoin banks, the biggest of which was known as -- have often proven not up to the task of protecting out money. so this is all brought forth these arguments of okay if you have something like this a
company based in tokyo that held half a billion dollars worth of people's bitcoin their money, you need somebody looking at it to make sure it has reasonable security, to make sure it's not just serving as a weigh station for hamas or hezbollah to move their money from jordan or syria to the united states or vice versa. there is a reason you want somebody watching the financial institution. of course i can go too far in the other direction and that's become polluted process we have for now we have right now that you talked about and the caymans are another indication of that. if you take three days to make a simple money transfer to a friend so the stories of wrongdoing and fraud throughout the bitcoin story have been a reminder of why regulations come about in the first place.
>> host: from oregon nader is on the line for nathaniel popper. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. western is i'm hearing held all at so it is. i know it looks like we are going off to that -- dollar which scares me more than anything. what about a country that would hang onto a lot of bitcoin and flood the market? i am hearing if you have a thousand dollars in the bank and that the nation would do that we could end up maybe having $5 in the bank. another one of my concerns is china's coming out with their own money and we have our own friends germany, france, sweden, south korea, taiwan. they are joining in with the china banks. can you explain something about that too please? >> guest: well i think you are talking about essentially these
currency wars that are particularly china's efforts to supplant the dollar as the reserve currently. i think what the coin is right now is a long long way from being able to provide an alternative in that sense. it's interesting when you look back from day one of bitcoin when it was launched in the initial paper in 2008 when it was released it actually talked about, people talked about the fact that this could one day be a sort of new global reserve currency and that has come up throughout bitcoin story. at this point all of the bitcoins are worth something like two or $3 billion so this is less than the stock of urban outfitters. >> host: what is in visual bitcoin work today?
>> guest: it's worth something like $235 and they're something like 14 million of them out in the world so that gives you this total value of all the bitcoins. but what you have seen and one of the stories that i tell them i'm look is the story of argentina where bitcoin has caught on in part because of the problems with their own currency. they have had numerous instances of hyperinflation and they have a deeply troubled financial system. people there have a gun to use bitcoin has a sort of alternative to their financial system. again, it's not half the country but it's ordinary people who are realizing new technology might provide an alternative. and i think frankly for now to the degree that bitcoin is used in that way it's more likely to happen in smaller places like
argentina, places with troubled financial systems. the united states for all its problems has a credit card system in the banking system that works pretty well for most people on a day-to-day basis. you hear a lot of people in this movement who talk about that coin saying that the united states is not the first place that needs technology. as needed in places will where people don't have a bank account or credit card at all or currency that they can't rely on. >> host: you talk about argentina and the publication is the headline that the ecuador's initiative that was bitcoin makes it mandatory for banks to follow that. a couple of comments on twitter for you nathaniel popper. this one says the reason there has been speculation is because the dollar has been debased and also a comment that if cash is only legal tender how can bitcoin even be legal? is not bitcoin another perry
scheme and they reflected a little bit of the title that matt o'brien in the "washington post" published a week ago or so. part of what he said in his comments wondering what bitcoin was he said it's unclear what that coin is or what it will be but it's clear what it's not. it's not currency. people don't set prices in bitcoin and for the most part it's the only function of money he writes. he comes close to performing as a store of value but it doesn't even do that well. a lot there on the plate but what is it exactly? >> guest: i think that gets right at a lot of the deep questions that have swirled around bitcoin and the problem they have think again counted his menace interesting that.
money in bitcoin, but when you want to make a transaction for the four minutes you are actually makinghe transtion and sending money to argentina you might want to hold it for that long to use the network to send money. so that network is what a lot of people have been focused on. we have had wall street tanks get into it and goldman sachs making its first investment in the new york stock exchange are getting involved. what they are generally looking at is not the currency but the financial network and again this goes to how many things that coin is in one of the reasons it ends up eating so confusing is that not just one thing. that's one of the reasons it's confusing. to me that's part of what makes it so fascinating because they get to thinking about all these different layers of how many works and what many needs to be successful.
>> host: let's hear from miami beach, larry good morning. >> caller: hi grade i have two questions. one, do you believe that that coin is a good bet against the dollar or wall street and two what are your thoughts on the -- with gemini.com? >> guest: this question of is bitcoin a good investment all i can say is entirely speculative investment at this point. bitcoin as we have said many times it is not something right now so the degree that people are betting on the price of bitcoin they are betting on what it's going to be in the future. that is still undecided. the wall street firms are getting involved that their project, their experiments are not complete. they don't know that they are going to use it. they don't know how they are going to use it and so it's
still very much an experiment for them. and the price of bitcoin and we can get into more the dynamics of that but it's essentially an open market. people offer to buy up or something and offered to sell it or something in the willingness of people to buy it is the unction of their view of how useful this might be. people want to own it because they think somebody else will want to own it in the future. at this point we don't yet know why people will want to own it in the future. we have a lot of guesses and there are people who are willing to put their money on one use or another but it's still very speculative. against the dollar this is going to be a wild ride for a while. on the winkle fuzzed twins if we want to go into that as i mentioned at the beginning they were two of the first names
people with reputations to attach themselves to bitcoin to say we own large quantities of bitcoin and they began by buying it up in investing in a company in a startup that ended up going under but they winkle vos' have dedicated themselves to this. i did an event the other night where they were talking about how much this has become the entire life's work at this point. so they have two big projects they're working on. one of them is an exchange bond which will they plan on having a trade on the stock exchange that will move at the price of bitcoin and the other is an exchange where you will be able to buy and sell bitcoin based in new york in regulated and the winkle vos went they very much have thrown their lot in with the idea that that coin needs to be regulated. that's their view so they are
trying to build these things with etf this exchange that are going to play well with regulators and try to gain confidence in that way. both of their projects have been a long time and development and are not yet out there. exchange called gemini the etf is going to run under the ticker symbol coin but they seem very dedicated to this so i think there is the possibility those projects and they have every intention of bringing those out there. .. in illinois. good morning. caller: i have a couple questions. i am curious as to how the supply of bitcoin is managed in
terms of the volume of bitcoins that are in existence. i was going to ask about how currency exchange rates are set for bitcoin. but from your previous answer about the buying and selling on the open market, it sounds like the value may be set on sort of the way a stock price is set. can you elaborate on how a bitcoin is valued? guest: our site with the first question asked to how many bitcoins exist and how is that limited, regulated. the bitcoin software, released in early 2009, it is run by all the people who join into it. everyone who joined in downloads the software, which includes a set of rules, which is how bitcoin works.
some are very complicated and technical. one of the central roles to the bitcoin system is how they will be generated and how many will be generated. the limits set from day one was that 21 million bitcoins will eventually be released to the people who use the system it was prescribed how they would be released. about every 10 minutes, a new lock a big one would be released to someone using the network. it is essentially a lottery. from day one, there were zero bitcoins. 10 minutes in, the first block was released and someone got that. that has been going on since then. it jobs in half, the number release, every four years. now, every 10 minutes 20 five
bitcoins are released to someone on the network. we are about halfway through the process of all the bitcoins being created. it is anticipated we will hit the 21 million number in 2040. that scarcity, that system are releasing bitcoins, was designed to create this sense of scarcity, sort of like gold. the idea there will only be a limited quantity, and you can always tell if the apart from anything else, just like you can tell gold apart from any other metal. that was part of the design of the system. giving them away was designed to get people to join in. that incentive is viewed as one of the brilliant elements of it. we are moving towards that 21 million and we are about halfway
through. once people get the bitcoins, they join the network, you can do whatever you want with them. you can hold onto them, send them to other people. you can send them to people for nothing or you could request a price. that is generally how it works now. people go to exchanges and they say i have 10 bitcoins, i am willing to sell them for $250. someone comes along and says i have 10 bitcoins, i am willing to pay $230. they strike a deal. but it is like the way stocks are priced and the way the dollar is priced. the price of the dollar against the euro and the yen is set on the open market. bitcoin prices are set in much the same way but they move around a lot more. host: we're from alice in
colorado. go ahead. caller: i am getting to learn more about the coin from this program. since we have legalized marijuana, and our transactions are done in cash and we cannot use ranks, because it is against federal law, i wondered if they could do something through the bitcoin industry. i know you say it is not really secure at this point, that there could be a lot of corruption but to me they pay people in cash, everything is secured in cash. that is scary to me. to have that in my neighborhood. guest: that is a great question. the question you have is at the front edge of the coin -- of bitcoin. i am not an expert on this.
i know stuff is going on and people are going -- playing with his intersection between legalized marijuana and bitcoin. people are saying this is enough of a controversial industry on its own, we do not eat to get involved with another controversial industry. but people have been making moves. you are right to notice there is an opportunity there. bitcoin, the way he has been able to take off so far, is in places where the existing financial setup is not working. i mentioned argentina as one of the first cases where ordinary people began using bitcoin. bitcoin is still hard to use. you have to have a good reason to want to use it if you're going to use it. that all cash economy that has surrounded legalized marijuana is one opportunity for that. the original usage of bitcoin
perhaps what made it most famous, was an online drug market called the silk road, where marijuana and a lot of harder drugs were available for coin -- bitcoin. that was a case in which the need for it, the alternative was so bad, that people were willing to play with the experimental element of bitcoin and take that risk. the alternative buying jugs on some street corner, was worse. host: some twitter comments. @cspanwj is our twitter handle. jan said that people would just get greedy with bitcoin. another one says bitcoin may become viable in emerges in -- in emerging markets and rural areas without a financial banking structure was cell phones.
also a question on what is the official obama administration policy on bitcoin? guest: the obama administration, i do not think of the white house it self has said much about bitcoin. the treasury department, which is part of the administration, has been looking at this. they have been slow to act, but to the degree they have said anything, they said this is an interesting technology and we are looking at it and we the existing rules are enough for now, but they have let it develop slowly. an interesting note is the administration did recently take on as one of its tech guru advisors, a princeton professor named ed felten who has been invited -- excited and involved with bitcoin. he has been a math and computer guy fascinated by the new things bitcoin makes possible.
this is not a guy saying everyone should go out and buy bitcoin, but it is interesting they brought on someone who is in this movement and is excited about bitcoin. host: we hear from dan in wisconsin. good morning. caller: people have to realize that, i believe bitcoin was introduced by the u.s. government as a one world currency. people have no clue where bitcoin came from. there is no one listed as the official person who invented bitcoin. they can take your money anytime they want. the u.s. government can take your money or a can be hacked. host: we hear from nathaniel popper on the founding of bitcoin. guest: it is possible, but i
would say that it is very unlikely. there is no sign the u.s. government has any control over this. in fact, the opposite. the u.s. government has tried to gain control at various points and has tried to get more inside access to the system. that possibility is out there. there is someone listed on the internet as the inventor of bitcoin. that name is satoshi nakamoto. that is a name on top of the original paper that describes bitcoin, attached to the software that brought the bitcoin system into existence. it became clear that satoshi nakamoto was just e-mailing with people. he would never call people, chat with people. it became clear this was probably a pseudonym for someone. after two years of communicating with some of the other users just as bitcoin was getting
going, he disappeared. host: you mean he disappeared from online? guest: exactly. that is the only existence had online, e-mailing with people. it is one of the fascinating elements of the bitcoin story. you have this anonymous creator. there have been many efforts to tie satoshi to people in the real world to essentially find the wizard behind the curtain of bitcoin. most have failed. in the course of my writing, i encounter the guy who a lot of people talk about as the most likely candidate to be satoshi nakamoto. this is a guy who had been working on similar projects for decades before this had -- released similar software that did not quite work. a computer programmer in
california, grew up in washington state. but it is still a mystery and one of the many fascinating elements of bitcoin, that we do not fully know who created this. but we know the name satoshi nakamoto. host: san antonio -- i am sorry that is not san antonio. good morning paul. caller: inc. you for having me. -- thank you for having me. happy birthday to the army. the armed services birthday. my dad and my best friend and my new wife were army. that said, the differences between that and gold and similar compromises with identity theft and how they are looking into that situation to make sure that it is not compromised and so forth and the other thing i had to do a
report on high school in nixon. great reporter. inc. you for your time. host: -- guest: the difference with gold -- my title indicates "digital gold." this was envisioned as somewhat of a digital equivalent to gold. we are getting again at the layers of bitcoin. scarcity is the thing that makes it like gold. the other thing that makes it like gold is the fact that -- every bitcoin is: to another bitcoin like every ounce of gold is equivalent to another ounce of gold. that is one of the reasons people have viewed it as his way and placed store money.
the advantage over gold is that you can move it around the world instantly. with gold, when the french national bank wanted to get their gold back, they had to essentially get a specially equipped ship to move it across the ocean. moving gold is not easy. it is not as easy to break it down into its constituent bits, whereas bitcoin can be divided into eight decimal points with the click of a cursor. it is like an easier to use gold for the digital era without the same as a call backing and the sense that you can hold in your hands or to make jewelry out of it if everything else failed. host: in your book, some of the curtains or in -- some of the concern of early supporters, you
write that the problem to libertarians was there ingrained belief that money has to be backed by something with physical value like gold. one of the patron saints of old books, carl manga, argued that all successful money arose from commodities. how did they overcome that? guest: there are different theories about what successful money needs to have. this gets to the heart of it. one argument about successful money says as i wrote, has to, from some commodity that had value before. that is why cigarettes are viewed as having taken off money. if all else fails, you still have the cigarettes. if all else fails with gold, you can still make jewelry with it.
a much more popular hypothesis about what makes successful money these days is that money is a centrally a ledger, a way to keep track of who has what and who owes what to someone else. the theory goes that gold took off because it was essentially a ledger. you knew it was one piece of the ledger of all the outstanding gold. and by wearing it around your neck, you were wearing your piece of the ledger. if someone else had a piece of the ledger, you could tell they owned that. banking systems since then have been based on ledger. our money today, most has no physical form. it is just entries in a ledger. bitcoin to the idea of a ledger. some who support bitcoin say it
is more perfect than the current banking system, then gold. according to this theory, money does not have to, from any commodity. it is not have to, from anything with intrinsic value. the fact that it is a ledger, that is the value. i think that is the way libertarians who have gone behind bitcoin have argued that this is going to work, that this will be as successful as gold. host: michael in dallas, texas. good morning. caller: i am sorry if you answer this question already but is the u.s. government or other governments considering developing their own digital currency is -- currencies. guest: ecuador has gone the farthest in saying they want to move their national currency on to the bitcoin technology.
they wanted to be separate from bitcoin. that is the furthest you have heard any government going. the winklevoss twins, when i talked to them last, expressed their believe the dollar would eventually end up on the bitcoin ledger. in the case of bitcoin, the ledger is known as the block chain, a record of all the bitcoin transactions that have happened. by looking at the bitcoin block chain, you can see every bitcoin ever created, you can see when money was transferred, and you can add up however many bitcoins a particular address had. the idea was you could basically attach things to a piece of bitcoin. you could attach ownership of a particular stock to a bitcoin so that when you traded the bitcoin, you are also trading the stock.
you can even break it down so that one millionth of a bitcoin is essentially a contract that says i own this stock or that i own this dollar or this $100. this is how some people imagined national currencies could move to a block chain. the value, the believe that should happen, is driven by the math and cryptography that underlines the bitcoin system and that some people think is more secure and stable than the existing financial arrangement. so far, it has not proven to be so, but i think there is some hope that the math and cryptography that makes bitcoin work could be more secure than the systems we have, where j.p. morgan or credit suisse or bank
of america is in charge of the ledger and you have to trust bank of america to handle that properly. banks themselves have been vulnerable to hacking attacks. they generally have not lost money, but that sort of thing is this conversation going, over whether it would be better to have a cryptographic solution like bitcoin. host: washington, d.c., 14 -- jo aquin. caller: i was hoping you could elaborate more on security. bitcoin is built essentially a startup. all of these companies have gone down due to cyber attacks and lost a lot of money for themselves and for people starting to use bitcoin. they may not feel it is more of a risk area can you talk more about that threat landscape and
some challenges they have to overcome? maybe what the winklevoss twins are doing to make that it'll currency more secure. guest: the strength and weakness of bitcoin comes down to the fact that the ownership of your bitcoin and your bitcoin address is tied up in this private key which is essentially a string of 64 letters and numbers. it is unique to you and your bitcoin address. if you control that, you can unlock your bitcoin addressed without a third party and spend your bitcoins. if you keep those 64 digit secure, your money is secure. no one can hack in to your address. but if you have those 64 digits written down and leave in a cafe and someone gets a hold of it
they have your bitcoins and have access to your bitcoin address. if you live it on your desktop and someone asked computer, they can similarly get access to your bitcoins and transfer them. a lot of what is happening around bitcoins security is about securing that address. increasingly, people are moving to what are known as multi-signature laws, or you need to ban secret keys. you have one and maybe a company a bitcoin bank for a security company keeps the other one and make sure that if you sign with your address, it is really you signing with it. it is getting these increasingly sophisticated security regimes people are coming up with. then you move back towards the old system where you have that third-party have to rely on. winklevoss twins are trying to come up with their exchange and
security is a big part of what they are working on. that is part of the reason they want regulation. they want regulators to say you guys are doing this right, you'll have good security, your securing clients properly. by that comes with the regulations that we started this whole thing talking about. it is a difficult moment that bitcoin is at. it has this sort of super security that if you do not have that 64 digit password, you cannot get the bitcoins. but once you have it, you have total access. it is something everyone in the bitcoin community is working on. the danger and promise of bitcoin. host: do you your cell phone bitcoins? guest: at the time, we made the decision this is like covering a company and owning stock in the
company. you did not want personally investment. if you're covering apple, you do not want to own apple stock and worry about your stocks can go up and down. i own enough that i can play with it and understand the components of the system, but not enough where i have financial interest. host: injured in san antonio hello. caller: hello. i want to thank you. i am calling from a hospital bed and san antonio. i heard about bitcoin mining. and you elaborate on that and let us know what that entails. guest: bitcoin mining is the way people refer to the process of creating new bitcoins. a reference to gold-mining. you do work to dig up old, today up new bitcoins.
the way the system works is new bitcoins are released every 10 minutes or so to people using the system. essentially, what i mentioned earlier, it is like a lottery. people using the system enter in a sort of lottery to win bitcoin s. the way the lottery works is you need very fast computers to essentially make a lot of lottery gases -- guesses. the more you make, the more you can win. you could do that with a laptop or early on, but now there are so many people computing -- competing, you now need specialized hardware made exclusively for bitcoin mining. it is expensive and it has become dominated a few companies that have gotten good at manufacturing these special
chips and getting cheap electricity. a lot of the bitcoin mining is happening in china, where there is cheap hardware, and also cheap electricity if you have a connection at a local coal energy factory, you can just throw your lines into the cold factory and you have free energy coming into your bitcoin mining machine. it is no longer something people can do easily from home. this sounds a little far-fetched and absurd -- why are people buying expensive hardware just to take part in a lottery. the twist on the lottery is that in the course of doing the lottery, these computers are essentially doing the bookkeeping for the network. they are registering new transactions as they come in determining people have the amount of money they need to do the transactions.
>> they talked about the role of law clerks and the question of whether justices should be term limited. >> welcome to the program. they held to discuss whether the supreme court is a failure and if so what can be done about it. [laughter] before i i introduce our distinguished panelists have to go through.
i'm happy to be a member of the 80s board. have you are mission as helping to grow and sustain the next generation of progressive lawyers. i have been delighted to see how many students there are and members of the lawyer chapters. that is why we are all here but we have a diverse panel. not everyone is necessarily on the same page which is obviously a good thing. cell phones must be turned off. done that. okay. they will have about 20 to 25 minutes for q&a at the end starting in about 20 minutes past five. cars will be collected.
a cx 15. and the session is approved for cme credit. take outside the box response to our topic of whether the supreme court is a failure. by that question we don't mean doctrinally. structurally. we we don't necessarily mean that one justice decides every important case. we can all agree that is problematic but life. there are many there are many things we can talk about in terms of the supreme court institutional functioning, the nomination process, the confirmation process for various other
aspects of the way the justices collectively or individually approach their work. what i have done rather than asked people to give us a little set peace of a talk is, i am going to throw out questions to our distinguished panelists who i almost forgot introduce. the question of -- to name one thing that they think indicates whether or not the court is a failure and what they would like to do about that and have a discussion on to the next person. in the order in which they are going to speak which is not the order in which they are sitting. on the far right the former dean of stanford law school and now runs the the foundation the bay area. to my left which is not
where you would usually find them seated is nelson long from george mason law school at the far left is growing the founding dean of the law school at uc irvine and to his right is elizabeth white room the chief counsel of the constitutional accountability center and justin driver on my immediate right from university of chicago law school. so these so these are all very distinguished constitutional scholars, and we are lucky to have them here. i am going to start with larry. is the supreme court a failure? in what way? and what would you like to do about that? >> i have a talk hawaii should have the supreme court. too long for this.
you know, why the supreme court is a a failure depends on how you define success. it has way too much power. the amount of power is insane. >> you wrote a whole book about this. >> i did. one solution would be take away the power. not so interesting for a variety of reasons. an easy way there should be some for accountability on the other side. independent provisions. we pile onto that a million more. any attempt to make them pay for the ticket and happens. so i will talk about some of those very quickly. one is the lack of transparency about the way the court operates on the shocking and extreme and ridiculous. it cuts across the board whether you're talking about their ability to take high paid junkets without having to disclose the mother ability to decide themselves
and what would they ever choose themselves. themselves. the lack of television coverage of the court which they oppose precisely because they don't want to see what goes on and on and on. that would be one. you can have more transparency and what the court does and how it operates between change public perception and in a useful way without in any way significantly undermining the emotions. the other is if we are going to have this power put on the court justices out there, i we will preface it by saying i would not put myself on the court either. if you're going to give people this kind of power
the fact of the matter is all the important cases, the ones we care about and make it an important institution was that literally by definition allow runs out giving you an answer. the question is what will take that last little bit? and we used actually put people on the court who had done things in life who had been senators are governors are cabinet officials who had responsibility for making decisions in the political realm and seeing what the consequences were and with that comes the kind of experience. you and the partisan context and they bring that to bear. this starts around 1970. we stripped away the ability now you have to have basically done nothing other than be a technical legal expert and have not done anything beyond that.
of course the course the problem is that on the lawns out exactly what it is these people have runs out and they have of the house to bring to bear on. they tend to fall back on what you would expect. that's what you see. the last just as my perspective who had a kind of experience to bring to bear would have been justice o'connor when you saw that in the way she decided cases. very distinctly. and so we need that kind of wisdom. i would change -- and i don't know how you view this but what we don't need on the court are people who have only ever been technical lawyers for particularly the ones who have been technical lawyers and only ever said or done a thing to my cause controversy and is to have people with real experience in the world that the court
is going to affect your's decisions. >> one other metrics something i remember walter dillinger said back in the day when he was advising president clinton and potential nominations is to ask whether that potential nominee if they never made it to the court into the new york times and what would it say. i guess by that measure ruth ginsburg would qualify. i'm not sure anybody else. but back to your. you make two kinds of points, one on the transparency and sort of with an undertone of ethics and the kind of work product and we put on the court. those are two quite different issues. and maybe we can discuss the separately. also on the transparency side and made a couple different. television is an old issue. one can debate. it has been debated for many years. put that.
but you mentioned judicial ethics and junkets and things. is that a problem? they do disclose their finances like every other federal judge. they do hold themselves down by the code of judicial ethics. as i understand it, the kind of formal matters of code do not apply to the justices even though they abide by it because who would judge the justices. what do others think that these are problems that indicate the court is falling short? falling short of the ethical.of transparency.
the sense that they haven't we can do what we want our there is actually something out there that will do what we. whatever the sponsors are, unions, corporations do i think about that do it think what i do that or not does that affect on his side, zero doubt that it does. it's kind of a pervasive culture and that a a particular rule. >> a corrupt culture? >> that corruption the death of independence, we don't independence, we don't actually have to worry about or care. it is all interconnected future not going to take away judicial's primacy. >> i don't think it's a corrupt culture. rarely there ever allegations of corruption.
i think that the ethical rules that apply should be applied to supreme court justices. i also think it's wrong whether is just whether each justice should recuse him or herself. the procedure should be changed. >> who would make a decision? >> we could create a panel of federal court of appeals judges that will be submitted. i submitted. i don't like the idea of being submitted to the justices. but it troubles me. justices are participating participating even though there are serious questions and we all know it is just left to that justice to the site. related to that they are often reluctant to
recuse themselves because of fear they believe the court with a four for split. i don't see any reason why we couldn't allow one of them to come back and said and when one of the justices recused which may make it more likely that they would recuse themselves in the close cases. >> an outside body of some kind of layout is that work? >> and there is a motion to recuse the justices should be submitted to somebody other than that justice. who that body is i am less interested in. going the other justices of the court to decide. i'm not like the idea that a a person is a judge of him or herself. were going to stay here. motion to recuse justice rehnquist.
the innocents were just a school you went hunting with the vice president. i can be fair and give other examples. it's much better when they are questions. submit to someone other than that justice. >> i think it's possible to put his comments side-by-side and think about the way the justices are ubiquitous features. one.that we don't see them. the oral argument capacity. i find that distracting and difficult to explain. justices explain. justices before they join often attracted to the idea
of televising the proceedings. it is an argument about needing cameras in the courtroom but why hasn't happened. if they if they are going to go out and give talks and they should be seen in their capacity command i don't think i don't think that it is because people would be embarrassed about the proceedings of the court. the justices ask a question. i i don't think that they have anything to fear by allowing cameras. the argument is that justice is another lawyers are going to plead to the galley that already happens. and so i think it would be wise for the justices to let cameras in the courtroom. >> can anyone think of the argument against? >> the argument that the justices themselves make as they are concerned the comments would be taken out
of context. that doesn't really seem to happen have been that much and i would say there's some middle ground between the arguments against having cameras and the court is at least to have one volume. we we see in some cases the high-profile cases of intense public interest. >> the marriage cases. >> they release them earlier the later that day. the lawyers lounge, overflow for the supreme court made it seems technologically easy for them to do that. that would be a very good middle ground for the court to adopt. that's only to the good if the american people can be more engaged and knowledgeable. >> in a way the current system is problematic. time to time the court will analysis a major case and put out the same day audio.
i went and read all of the transcripts of the confirmation hearings. when they were asked what they thought the role of the judge was i found the answer and you cannot tell the difference. if i read the answer you would not be able to tell which nominee it was. the job of the judges to apply the law my personal views have nothing to do with being a judge. it is a constrained narrow niche. the two most striking cases were pres. obama's nominees, both of which were asked how well, the president said it is all
about your heart. that is why she picked you. now, i don't agree with that. both of them said they do not agree with that. so they say command all of the senators seem to agree on both sides of the aisle that is what judges supposed to do. and i think it i think it is not completely impossible that they could do that a lot more than they do now. i now. i saw a report of a talk with elena kagan at a law school where she described the conferences and said, well, there are two kinds of conferences. the ones about the big cases that make the front page of the new york times command those conferences are short. no one discusses the case. they say hey now -- they say how they will vote and they think if they have to explain or discuss the case
they would annoy each other, so was the.of that. but then they're are long conferences command those are about the cases that no one we will accept lawyers who specialize in that field pay attention to. they often go on for quite a long time and spend their time trying to figure out what the right legal answers. they try to work it out. so my proposal would be to congress, do a few things to encourage more long conferences that if you are short conferences. were short conferences. and i have for proposals which i worked up. i we will state the conclusions without giving reasons. first, congress could require all opinions for the supreme court majority conferring and do something to be anonymous and affect universal procuring and opinions. that would include the concurrences understand. second, they could expand
the jurisdiction of the court, you know, right-wingers often going for the jurisdiction stripping ideas cut down and let them do. i would say let them do more. there is no longer use statutory mechanism by which courts of appeals can certify question to the spring court. issues that they think the courts need more guidance on. the supreme court does not like to be told which cases they were here so they never ever except the certifications. my proposal would be for every search grant on a federal question case they have to take one certified case with the court of appeals and that would give them more opportunity to try to deal with the issues at the lower court. and then i and then i would take away their law clerks. the pernicious effect of the culture. >> the people in this room. >> they have a pernicious
influence. a pernicious influence. to the extent they serve the function, doing research that can be assigned to the office of the library and the court and the result would then be shared with the justices not just a little research projects aimed at that particular justice. right there requiring the justice to write their own opinion would have some of the beneficial effects of term limits. [laughter] if they had to do their own job we would have fewer justices who stayed in the settled pastor the time that they can no longer mount the horse. [laughter] and my last suggestion would be that we bring back circuit riding. that was from 100 years they were they were required to do circuit riding even though they hated it.
they finally managed to get rid of it and bring it back plenty of time during the summer. spend a little less time in the alps and more time sitting on some of the lower courts doing real judicial work. and these are all marginal changes, mars proposals. >> they won't give us the perfect court. but it would be -- [laughter] >> wonderful blue sky proposals that i actually i actually -- you have an article with you which i sense to my students every spring. i wait until the end of the term so that they form their own views and then i present them with yours. >> am often good for a laugh. >> a.
anonymous opinions. some of the european courts take a different approach but i think approaching the same problem they do not allow dissenting opinions. you could have anonymous opinions that would speak for the entire court without concurring or dissenting opinions. have you thought of writing a new article about that? >> i would not do that. the european judicial culture is quite different from ours, ours, and i think dissenting and concurring opinions conserve valuable purpose. partly in disciplining the majority by presenting competing arguments and partly by informing the borrower disagreements within the court. i think making them anonymous would not
necessarily due to curtail of the showboating. the rate for casebook editors and there's a lot of stuff the judicial opinions and the opinions of many of the justices. that is not a partisan or ideological thing. no one talking about on both sides of the ideological. >> they would be anonymous. i think it's important to be able to say justice scalia
offered the opinion and it is in contrast to these three other opinions that the justice has authored or joined. that is an important part of sympathizing precedent and allowing the public to hold justices accountable for deviation from precedent and from their own stated views. not being able to do that would be harmful. >> i think that you necessarily very sensitive to public outcry. if one does take seriously if you decided record your
particular preferences as the outcome that i think that would be a sufficient outcry. hold justices. you voted this way and race. you should vote this way when obama care counsel for you as opposed to a principled statement of the law. >> ultimately the way we hold the supreme court accountable is through presidential elections. who we elect for president in 2016 especially through two terms is likely to fill for vacancies on the supreme court. there should be no issue in the presidential election more important. >> that statement which is sort of true is insane. something has gone seriously wrong with your democracy in the statement that is made is what we need to worry about what we choose a president is who they will put on the supreme court.
this is not critical of you because i think that is a nap statement of the core problem. i -- exactly the reason. what do you have. accountability, the court is acutely self-conscious. self-conscious. the problem is where we have set limits is so far out there that they can go far. the question is what are the devices that you can add to reproduce some semblance of modesty with respect to their views as compared to the views of people who disagree. i don't think that is incorrect. but it is what kind of democracy is that. democracy is great except for things that are important.
>> i think the question is, are we as a society better off having an institution like the supreme court largely insulated from direct electoral responsibility to decide the meaning? tremendously critical. i still believe we are better off. >> a lot. >> not better off and did not have that. throughout the course of american history what amazes me is progressive audiences should hold this view so much more strongly. across american history record has been a reactionary institution far more often and in way more ways. >> the only thing i say is that when i think of the people who once represented, criminal descendents, prisoners, a homeless man before the spring court it
is the court or nothing. to say we're not going to have the court available when is the last time a state legislature expanded the rights of defendants? >> they do it all the time. >> the progressive, the sort progressive, the sort of delusional sure that a brief and exceptional time in american history has put over the whole of american history of the progressive reforms and criminal justice that took place in the run-up to the 50s and 60s command there were quite a few of them. we tend to focus on only the things the supreme court did. what is happening now is all in the face of really radical conservative supreme court criminal justice rights where we have one area in which we have some breakdown and polarization. you have to take the law. the the people you represented, you were a lawyer during that time.
i see that. you have to look at the courts of american history, it is hard to justify the court is a progressive institution. i don't care one way or the other. i actually believe in democracy. >> thank you. the actual as of this.which i disagree with. i think it is actually a pernicious development that the justices feel compelled to stick with their non- personal precedent. it used it used to be that the precedents where the decision of the court and often times very commonly wants a court decided in issue the justices who were in dissent accepted that precedent and that was the precedent of the court. ..
>> it seems to be that back-office them great pain, and this is part of a rather elaborate explanation as to why they voted to uphold this statute and invalidate the statute. i think that it would be better if people got away from that. that they could explain what has led them to change their mind. one