00:06:01.720 --> 00:06:03.110
Dean Leonard M. Baynes: Good evening!

00:06:03.630 --> 00:06:17.619
Good evening! Good evening. I'm Leonard Baynes, Dean of the University of Houston Law Center. I want to welcome you to the Ruby Kless Sondock Jurist in Residence program.

00:06:17.700 --> 00:06:25.419
And we're very welcome and very happy to have former Chief Justice Nathan Hecht as our keynote speaker.

00:06:25.500 --> 00:06:44.520
But we also have Ruby Sondock, right, Ruby Kless Sondock, who is one of our most notable alums. She is a graduate of the law school in 1962. She was one of only 5 women in the law school class at the time. She graduated valedictorian of the law school. She,

00:06:44.570 --> 00:06:48.979
Right after graduating, she argued her first case before the Texas Supreme Court.

00:06:49.060 --> 00:07:03.359
She became the first woman to be a district court judge in Harris County, the first woman to serve on the Texas Supreme Court. She's a trailblazer, a path setter. She's just amazing. I know she doesn't like to be…

00:07:03.400 --> 00:07:10.359
She doesn't like all this praise. But when we started this program to bring jurists in residence of the program, into the law school.

00:07:10.800 --> 00:07:20.309
I said to her, we're gonna make sure that the Sondock name blazes… blazes across the Texas sky, and I think that's what we're doing by bringing such notable

00:07:20.310 --> 00:07:32.729
talented jurists to our law school community. So, thank you, Justice Sondock, for all you've done. Thank you for being one of our incredible alums, and just thank you for being you. Thank you, Justice Sondock. Let's give a round of applause.

00:07:37.330 --> 00:07:46.850
And we have some notable judges in our audience. So, first is Judge Adrogué, Sophia Adrogué.

00:07:47.140 --> 00:07:50.969
who's actually going to be a recipient of the Ruby Kless Sondock.

00:07:51.160 --> 00:07:55.450
Award from the HBA for her own trailblazingness.

00:07:55.480 --> 00:08:13.169
Judge Adrogué is… was an articles editor of the law review. She's a noted corporate attorney. She produces volumes of liter… of literature on all different types of corporate issues. She has a regular, a CLE on this, and she's been on the…

00:08:13.170 --> 00:08:21.440
inaugural member of the, Texas Business Court in Harris County, so let's welcome Sophia Adrogué.

00:08:24.390 --> 00:08:30.580
And then we have Grant Dorfman, where are you Grant… Judge Dorfman… oh, there you go. So, Judge Dorfman is not one of our alums.

00:08:30.990 --> 00:08:43.529
But he, he might as well be. He serves as an advisor to the Houston Law Review, he has been an adjunct professor, and he also serves on the, on the Texas Business Court. So welcome, Judge Dorfman.

00:08:47.060 --> 00:08:49.750
And then we have Judge Ken Wise.

00:08:50.230 --> 00:08:58.190
who's, on the 14th District Court of Appeals, he's also one of our alumni. We welcome you here as well. Judge Wise, thank you for being here.

00:09:00.550 --> 00:09:11.890
And then we have also… we have a lot of judges in the house, to be honest with you. Last but not… apart from the speaker, we have Judge Priscilla Richman.

27
00:09:11.890 --> 00:09:23.549
who is, was the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She's currently on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She had been on the Texas Supreme Court. She's not one of her alums, but we accept you and adopt you.

28
00:09:23.810 --> 00:09:41.420
She's a Baylor Law alum, she went to Baylor undergrad. She, as I told the audience this afternoon of students, she had scored number one on Texas bar exam when she took the bar exam, several years ago. We've actually had 11

29
00:09:41.420 --> 00:09:56.710
students score in the top 3, takes one of the states that actually, catalogs who has scored number 1, 2, or 3, not 1 or 2 or 3%, but number 1, 2, or 3, and she was numero uno, so…

30
00:09:56.710 --> 00:10:03.290
And she's been very active, like, Chief Justice Hecht, in, service to indigent

31
00:10:03.300 --> 00:10:19.470
individuals to make sure that there are opportunities for access to justice. She's been involved in gender fairness, among a variety of different things. So we're very, very appreciative that she's here. We did a earlier fireside chat where I

32
00:10:19.470 --> 00:10:30.300
interviewed both judges, Judge Hecht, Chief Judge Hecht, and also Judge Richman at the same time, which was great, and I think the students really enjoyed it. So let's welcome Judge… Chief Judge…

33
00:10:30.600 --> 00:10:31.510
Richman.

34
00:10:33.350 --> 00:10:40.979
And then last but not least, but our keynote speaker, our Sondock Lecturer, which is, Chief Judge Nathan Hecht.

35
00:10:41.090 --> 00:10:56.869
He was Chief Judge of the Texas Supreme Court. He was the longest-serving judge on the Texas Supreme Court. He had, over the course of his time, authored 7,000 pages

36
00:10:56.870 --> 00:11:08.299
of opinions, and heard more than 2,700 oral arguments during his tenure. And he's also been very involved in, legal services.

37
00:11:08.300 --> 00:11:21.949
and making sure that people who have limited means have a great deal of opportunities to have representation. Judge… Chief Judge Hecht received his bachelor's degree from Yale Law… Yale University, and his law degree

38
00:11:21.950 --> 00:11:28.689
from SMU. He had clerked for Judge Roger Robb of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

39
00:11:28.690 --> 00:11:43.020
District of Columbia. He served as a lieutenant in the, U.S. Naval Reserve. He had practiced for the, I guess, former firm Locke. I mean, it has a new, another new name, which was a Troutman Pepper Locke.

40
00:11:43.030 --> 00:11:50.559
So it has changed, names multiple times in the past few years through, mergers and whatnot.

41
00:11:50.920 --> 00:12:09.349
And he's also served on the District Court, among others. He's now a partner of Jackson Walker's litigation practice in Austin, Texas, and so we're really delighted that you're here. He's also very involved in the ABA. I've worked with him and spoke to him. He's on the ABA Council for Accreditation for Law Schools, and he's been very, very active in the

42
00:12:09.350 --> 00:12:25.670
Conference of Chief Judges, justices, State Court Judges. He was actually the longest-serving member of that group as president of the Conference of Chief Justices. So we're really excited that he is here. He's gonna be talking, his title of his talk is called…

43
00:12:26.220 --> 00:12:32.380
Whose side are you on, Judge? Ours or theirs?

44
00:12:32.780 --> 00:12:37.059
Judicial independence in a Riven Civitis.

45
00:12:37.970 --> 00:12:40.610
Am I pronouncing that correctly? Sort of.

46
00:12:40.870 --> 00:12:53.879
He's gonna talk about the independence of the judiciary. So, who would be the best person to talk about this at this time, but our former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Nathan Hecht. Welcome.

50
00:13:30.080 --> 00:13:35.789
Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht: Well, thanks very much, Dean, for that generous introduction, and thanks to all of you for being here this afternoon.

51
00:13:35.920 --> 00:13:43.059
It is a great honor and privilege for me to be here, under the…

52
00:13:43.170 --> 00:13:47.660
name and auspices of Justice Ruby Sondock.

53
00:13:47.810 --> 00:13:54.459
Formerly of, the Supreme Court of Texas, as well as the other judges whom you have met.

54
00:13:55.980 --> 00:14:07.429
We elect judges in Texas, as you know, on partisan ballots, some 1,800 of them. In my view, partisan elections are deeply flawed because

55
00:14:07.500 --> 00:14:17.890
They risk injecting politics into judicial selection and then, judicial decision making.

56
00:14:18.020 --> 00:14:24.520
When that has no, place in judicial decision-making.

57
00:14:24.620 --> 00:14:34.039
In 1982, when Justice Denton's unexpected death created a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Texas, it fell to Governor Bill Clements.

58
00:14:34.200 --> 00:14:45.590
to fill that seat, and Governor Clements was the first Republican governor elected in Texas history, and only the second Republican state office holder

59
00:14:45.640 --> 00:15:01.240
Elected in Texas. Justice Sondock had been elected to the District Court here in Houston as a Democrat. There were a few judges in Texas who had run on the Republican ballot, including me.

60
00:15:01.310 --> 00:15:06.809
But Governor Clements ignored politics to a point…

61
00:15:07.010 --> 00:15:12.269
the best judge in the state to the Supreme Court of Texas, and that was Ruby Sondock.

62
00:15:17.960 --> 00:15:23.530
The first woman to serve in the regular session of the court was as apolitical a judge.

63
00:15:23.630 --> 00:15:26.150
As the appointment that put her there.

64
00:15:26.390 --> 00:15:31.270
She's been a role model for judges, since then, especially me.

65
00:15:31.430 --> 00:15:41.419
Especially because 6 years later, I took the same seat, on the court that she had held, 6, only 6 months, 6 years before.

66
00:15:41.570 --> 00:15:45.679
So, it's especially fitting for me to be here.

67
00:15:45.950 --> 00:15:47.160
with her.

68
00:15:47.640 --> 00:15:57.400
to talk about, as the dean says, whose side are you on, Judge? Ours or theirs? Judicial independence in a riven civitas.

69
00:15:57.590 --> 00:16:01.610
Really, I mean, we're talking about this, but we are, almost every day.

70
00:16:01.780 --> 00:16:14.149
The idea that judges should take sides should be abhorrent, but that's much of what you hear. The last thing in the world we want is somebody walking into a courtroom.

71
00:16:14.520 --> 00:16:24.590
Any court, any court looking up at the bench and not trusting that the judge will decide fairly based on the facts and the law, but wondering

72
00:16:24.590 --> 00:16:38.859
whether the judge will be on their side or on the other side, because of their politics, and Texas political contributions might have been made. Did that influence the judge? Religion, race, gender, in family courts.

73
00:16:38.860 --> 00:16:49.819
With the future of parents and children at stake, or in a teenager's misdemeanor drug case, or a personal injury case, or an eviction case, or in federal court.

74
00:16:49.820 --> 00:16:59.959
Is that what we want? Can't… it cannot be perceived as who's on whose side and still be justice. What we want is for everyone

75
00:17:00.590 --> 00:17:04.279
To walk out of the courthouse every time thinking.

76
00:17:04.990 --> 00:17:22.179
Thank God for fair courts. Thank God for the American justice system, for real justice. The promise that I always heard when I was in civics class in junior high school turns out it really is real. It's just happened to me. Equal justice under law.

77
00:17:23.410 --> 00:17:42.469
But I was reading of the President's many denunciations of the judiciary, accusing courts of usurping power, and judges of being politically motivated, warning of judicial tyranny and undermining the Constitution, and even going to the extreme of calling for the impeachment of Justice

78
00:17:43.920 --> 00:17:45.430
Samuel Chase.

79
00:17:46.550 --> 00:17:57.599
I was reading, of course, Chief Justice Rehnquist's book, Grand Inquests, which recounts the Senate trial of Justice Chase, and the person of whom I speak.

80
00:17:57.910 --> 00:18:02.390
Of course, was President Thomas Jefferson.

81
00:18:03.360 --> 00:18:04.519
Fooled you, didn't I?

82
00:18:05.010 --> 00:18:07.950
You thought I was talking about another day.

83
00:18:08.060 --> 00:18:15.649
President Jefferson deplored the thought of judicial independence. The Constitution, he wrote, is a mere thing of whack.

84
00:18:16.320 --> 00:18:21.219
In the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape

85
00:18:21.340 --> 00:18:38.250
into any form they may please. What a great tweet that would have made. What a great social post, if only he'd had it. He believed that judges were no less immune from ambition and influence than other holders of power.

86
00:18:38.450 --> 00:18:45.459
And should therefore be directly accountable to the people, elected, like other officials.

87
00:18:46.110 --> 00:18:50.460
Alexander Hamilton took the opposite view. He argued forcefully.

88
00:18:50.610 --> 00:18:53.630
The judges could be fair and just only

89
00:18:54.080 --> 00:19:07.280
If they were appointed for life, and independent of any constituency other than the faithful adherence to the rule of law. Justice, Hamilton wrote, is the first duty of society.

90
00:19:07.700 --> 00:19:09.479
I think Jefferson agreed.

91
00:19:09.910 --> 00:19:11.969
But who was right on how to get there?

92
00:19:12.460 --> 00:19:27.499
At first, Hamilton won. Article 3 of the Constitution, federal judges appointed for life. Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Judges get to decide, among the three branches, they get to decide what the law is.

93
00:19:27.580 --> 00:19:32.710
SCOTUS believes… SCOTUS decides what the law means and what it should be.

94
00:19:32.910 --> 00:19:44.220
Based on the Constitution and laws, that have been enacted in society. But, the debate about judges goes on.

95
00:19:44.620 --> 00:19:47.810
The political branches have always chafed

96
00:19:47.910 --> 00:20:04.679
against judicial independence. I don't have to go back further than FDR. When the New Deal, programs that he had initiated, and he thought they were absolutely necessary to escape the Great Depression

97
00:20:04.720 --> 00:20:10.699
were being struck down as unconstitutional, one after another, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

98
00:20:11.340 --> 00:20:15.860
That was FDR. Just as Obama famously

99
00:20:16.010 --> 00:20:22.169
Decried Citizens United in a State of the Union message with the Supreme Court sitting right there in front of him.

100
00:20:22.300 --> 00:20:36.500
Talking about how awful their opinion was. Just, President Trump, in the first administration, referred to a decision, that he didn't like as being made by a, quote, Obama judge

101
00:20:36.610 --> 00:20:39.520
in the, quote, unfair Ninth Circuit.

102
00:20:39.960 --> 00:20:41.590
Chief Justice Roberts.

103
00:20:41.920 --> 00:20:59.419
That's more than he could take. He responded, we don't have Obama judges or Trump judges. We have an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.

104
00:20:59.840 --> 00:21:08.609
And the president responded, well, then why do we get so many bad rulings from only a handful of judges, all in the Ninth Circuit?

105
00:21:09.860 --> 00:21:17.170
Then, Senator Whitehouse, from Rhode Island, one of the leading Democrats in the United States Senate.

106
00:21:17.570 --> 00:21:19.650
As far to the left as you could get.

107
00:21:19.790 --> 00:21:21.840
from President Trump.

108
00:21:22.100 --> 00:21:23.249
Said, you know what?

109
00:21:23.710 --> 00:21:34.849
I agree with President Trump. I don't like his tactics, I don't like what he's doing, but he's right about the judges. They take sides. Only they take his side.

110
00:21:35.080 --> 00:21:37.759
And they should be taking our side.

111
00:21:38.400 --> 00:21:45.609
They show no respect, he said, quote-unquote, for precedent, federalism, originalism, or judicial restraint.

112
00:21:46.610 --> 00:21:55.910
The election of President Biden didn't end the attack on judicial independence. Everybody just… Switched sides.

113
00:21:56.360 --> 00:22:00.189
Reactions to Dobbs, the Dobbs opinion in 2022.

114
00:22:00.530 --> 00:22:19.309
the Biden Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court. Its proposals were to enforce term limits on Supreme Court justices and call for an expansion of the court just exactly like FDR had done, what, 80 years before.

115
00:22:19.530 --> 00:22:26.289
Calls for impeachment of judges were ongoing throughout the change in administration.

116
00:22:26.430 --> 00:22:33.880
And now, in the second Trump administration, the fury has not ended, it's grown even louder.

117
00:22:34.540 --> 00:22:36.600
Deportation decisions.

118
00:22:36.750 --> 00:22:49.679
The President denounces them. The left… the left says, judges are standing up for civil liberties, issuing nationwide injunctions to prevent constitutional violations. Hooray!

119
00:22:49.940 --> 00:23:04.649
The right says, for all activist judges, they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. The right says, oh, hooray for the Supreme Court, they're curbing all those practices. The left says, the Supreme Court's a tool for the president.

120
00:23:04.790 --> 00:23:20.899
Tariffs. I don't need to go through all these decisions. Tariffs. The president decries tariffs. He said the justices who participated in that decision were what? An embarrassment. An embarrassment to themselves and their families. The decision was a disgrace.

121
00:23:21.350 --> 00:23:36.359
The, the other side says, the left says, oh, thank goodness we finally got rid of those tariffs. So it goes both ways, switching week by week, all of the time, with one thing coming out of it all.

122
00:23:36.580 --> 00:23:39.790
The judges are taking sides.

123
00:23:40.030 --> 00:23:45.010
And they ought to, They just oughta take my side.

124
00:23:45.710 --> 00:23:51.550
We won't go into birthright citizenship. We'll see what that hap… what happens there.

125
00:23:51.730 --> 00:23:54.310
So…

126
00:23:54.650 --> 00:24:08.500
Did Jefferson win? Has he won the debate? It's better to have judges in politics, pressured by the system. Well, let's ask the people. Let's see what they think.

127
00:24:08.780 --> 00:24:10.460
We take polls.

128
00:24:10.770 --> 00:24:19.589
Every year of what, the people think about judges. Almost all of the polls are about state judges, but we take some polls

129
00:24:19.670 --> 00:24:36.319
About federal judges. There are 30,000 state judges, about, we don't know exactly how many, in the United States. About 1,700 federal judges. There are about 400,000 federal cases, a year in the federal courts. There are 70

130
00:24:36.470 --> 00:24:40.330
million cases in the state courts.

131
00:24:40.840 --> 00:24:46.469
And, in… At least three-fourths of the civil cases

132
00:24:46.840 --> 00:25:01.569
where you're not entitled to legal representation in the case, as you are in a criminal case if you're indigent. In at least three-fourths of the cases, one side or both do not have a lawyer. So, in 15 million cases…

133
00:25:01.800 --> 00:25:11.719
One side or both doesn't have a lawyer, and all of the studies show that if you don't have a lawyer, you're more likely to lose when you shouldn't.

134
00:25:12.050 --> 00:25:13.560
So, is that…

135
00:25:13.800 --> 00:25:22.309
equal justice under law. It's not really any surprise then, is it, when we ask the people, do you trust the courts?

136
00:25:23.130 --> 00:25:29.859
In 2012, 75% of the people said, absolutely.

137
00:25:30.040 --> 00:25:34.170
In 2024, 63.

138
00:25:34.510 --> 00:25:36.170
Down 12%.

139
00:25:36.330 --> 00:25:48.640
Thank goodness we're ahead of the Supreme Court of the United States. They're down to 54%, so at least we can brag about that if we wanted to. But do you…

140
00:25:48.740 --> 00:26:04.300
when they were asked, do you believe that state courts provide equal justice to all? In 2014, 62%, almost two-thirds of the people asked said yes. Only a fourth of the people said no.

141
00:26:04.780 --> 00:26:20.590
In 2022, for the first time since we've been taking these polls in over 25 years, only 43% said, state courts provide equal justice to all, 49% said no.

142
00:26:20.980 --> 00:26:22.919
Now it's almost even again.

143
00:26:23.370 --> 00:26:31.419
But that's hardly anything to brag about. And here's the one I worry about even more than that one. Do you believe state courts are political?

144
00:26:31.550 --> 00:26:39.460
In 2014, people… 48% of the people, polled said yes. 2024, 59%.

145
00:26:39.580 --> 00:26:51.950
And here's the thing. In that poll, the people who responded were asked, do you identify, as on the left or on the right? And people answered that question.

146
00:26:52.300 --> 00:27:05.590
people who do not think, or who think that the courts are political, same on the left and the right. There's no variation, based on your side of the political spectrum.

147
00:27:06.420 --> 00:27:10.050
So, here's what I think.

148
00:27:10.430 --> 00:27:21.609
The loss of public confidence in justice system is due to accusing justices of taking sides and encouraging them to do so, on one hand and on the other.

149
00:27:21.910 --> 00:27:32.269
Jefferson was right about this. Removing justices… judges from popular political pressures with lifetime appointments can invite… can invite…

150
00:27:32.440 --> 00:27:37.210
Lack of accountability, and even judicial overreach.

151
00:27:37.590 --> 00:27:52.439
But he was wrong about this. Subjecting judges to popular political pressures destroys public trust and confidence in the third branch as an institution. In the end, Hamilton was right.

152
00:27:52.800 --> 00:28:03.420
If there is to be a rule of law, judges must be independent of the popular political pressures that roil the other two branches.

153
00:28:03.990 --> 00:28:09.729
The polls are strong evidence if Not, as I think, proof.

154
00:28:10.790 --> 00:28:14.530
So, what are we gonna do about it all?

155
00:28:14.860 --> 00:28:30.190
Well, first of all, it's a free country, so you can say what you want to. And, you can… judges are not above criticism, they're not… it's criticism of judges and their opinions, it's not out of bounds, there's no First Amendment exception.

156
00:28:30.190 --> 00:28:41.409
For judicial criticism, you can say of them the same thing as you can say of, officials in the other two branches, or anybody else with limits like…

157
00:28:41.510 --> 00:28:49.400
You can't fire… you can't, yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't, encourage.

158
00:28:49.930 --> 00:28:58.020
vindictiveness or violence. You, have to, speak within certain limits, but the limits

159
00:28:58.140 --> 00:28:59.859
Are very broad.

160
00:29:00.030 --> 00:29:02.220
And inciting violence.

161
00:29:02.410 --> 00:29:11.669
While it may not be protected speech, it's awfully hard to get to the point, where you are being able to rein it in.

162
00:29:11.800 --> 00:29:13.990
So, you can talk about judges.

163
00:29:14.430 --> 00:29:17.979
What you hear in the press day after day.

164
00:29:18.340 --> 00:29:27.890
In the social media, from whomever it comes, from the President of the United States, from members of Congress or the Senate.

165
00:29:27.890 --> 00:29:38.419
From law professors, of whom there are many commentators, in the public sphere, and, from even just public…

166
00:29:38.420 --> 00:29:54.019
minded citizens who think, you know, that case was wrong, this was wrong, I'm not sure the judges are going in the right direction, I'm not sure, that the judicial system is being as fair and equal to all as it should be.

167
00:29:55.000 --> 00:29:57.250
That's certainly within bounds.

168
00:29:57.830 --> 00:30:00.239
But we do have to ask ourselves.

169
00:30:00.980 --> 00:30:03.780
At what cost do we do that?

170
00:30:04.430 --> 00:30:08.950
So let me think about that for a couple of seconds.

171
00:30:09.280 --> 00:30:12.530
at what cost? First of all.

172
00:30:12.750 --> 00:30:15.730
It ought to be totally out of bounds.

173
00:30:15.940 --> 00:30:22.429
To threaten judges, with physical violence because of a decision that they've made.

174
00:30:22.960 --> 00:30:30.510
Surely ought to be able to agree, left and right, whatever the issues, that goes, too far.

175
00:30:32.490 --> 00:30:39.930
Justice Scalia famously said years ago, I attack ideas. I don't attack people.

176
00:30:40.180 --> 00:30:50.999
And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day job. That was his view of the work that he did.

177
00:30:51.370 --> 00:30:53.090
But…

178
00:30:53.280 --> 00:31:07.550
Many of the comments that you see today, come very close, to, personal attacks, on judges, threats that are, if not criminal, on the verge of

179
00:31:07.660 --> 00:31:08.780
criminality.

180
00:31:08.990 --> 00:31:11.770
We have a real problem with,

181
00:31:12.140 --> 00:31:21.010
security of judges in the country. The U.S. Marshals Service reports that, threats against federal judges are up.

182
00:31:21.170 --> 00:31:33.519
We don't have any similar reporting in the states, but DPS here in Texas and law enforcement in other states will tell you, they're up there too, and trending up.

183
00:31:33.700 --> 00:31:43.680
As people who read about cases, or reactions to cases, and they get very frustrated, and they say something, maybe that they don't really mean.

184
00:31:43.920 --> 00:31:48.279
Turns out to be, really a threat of violence against the judge.

185
00:31:48.460 --> 00:31:54.290
The, we've just been reading about…

186
00:31:55.160 --> 00:32:08.830
one of the Supreme Court justices out on the speaking circuit, said that one… another justice on the court, has a privileged background and, can't understand

187
00:32:09.070 --> 00:32:12.910
Day workers, hourly workers.

188
00:32:15.630 --> 00:32:32.690
having been a judge for a long time, I understand that we feel very strongly about cases and how they should come out, but translating that into some sort of slur or assault against the person of the judge…

189
00:32:32.760 --> 00:32:38.310
Not only attacks the judge, but the judge's family, the…

190
00:32:38.930 --> 00:32:58.400
the people who work with the judge, because usually these threats are against the courthouse, not just against the judge, so it's clerks and law clerks and law enforcement and jurors and witnesses and participants, who are the brunt of these threats. Recently.

191
00:32:58.900 --> 00:33:02.880
Chief Justice Roberts was at Rice. You all saw that in the last…

192
00:33:03.010 --> 00:33:08.350
Couple of three weeks, and he said, quote, This has got to stop.

193
00:33:09.150 --> 00:33:16.580
Well, you can say that, but we really need to make sure that, there is some

194
00:33:16.950 --> 00:33:20.990
Reverse pressure of some sort, some denunciation.

195
00:33:21.120 --> 00:33:28.309
In bar associations, or the press, or, community,

196
00:33:29.140 --> 00:33:44.600
community involvement that says, this… really, now, this is… this is too far. We need to go… go back and stick to the issues. Whatever you think about the tariff decision, whatever you think about, the

197
00:33:44.750 --> 00:33:57.000
birthright citizen decision. The judges who are wrestling with those issues are doing their very best to come out as nearly as they can, as close to the law as they can see it.

198
00:33:57.210 --> 00:34:04.979
This is not a political issue, that you're voting for one side or the other that lost the election. This is an effort to try to get the

199
00:34:06.080 --> 00:34:09.000
Justice done, equally and fairly.

200
00:34:09.449 --> 00:34:16.139
I already talked about physical security, there shouldn't be attacks against,

201
00:34:16.320 --> 00:34:19.230
The justice system, or judges,

202
00:34:19.550 --> 00:34:24.270
We saw, in… not long ago.

203
00:34:24.449 --> 00:34:27.869
Attacks made against a member of the…

204
00:34:27.940 --> 00:34:45.540
Supreme Court, somebody, crouching in his front yard, and threatening, harm to him, physical harm to him. The trial of that case, reactions to the trial, but the, the point is that it's ongoing, and,

205
00:34:45.739 --> 00:34:55.880
And we have to, as stewards of the justice system and the promise of fairness, have to respond to that.

206
00:34:56.429 --> 00:35:02.899
There can't be institutional attacks, and again, we should respond to that.

207
00:35:04.960 --> 00:35:24.829
judicial opinions threatening the end of our society, if not civilization. You know, I exaggerate about this much, but that's what many of the opinions say. They say, the world has come to an end, and you think… I remember a Peanuts cartoon, I've got it hanging on my wall, and

208
00:35:25.340 --> 00:35:32.720
One of the characters says, is listening to the ball game, and he said, they're playing as if,

209
00:35:32.760 --> 00:35:34.789
Well, the world has come to an end.

210
00:35:34.830 --> 00:35:47.909
And he said, oh my gosh, the world has come to an end. They all go running around, and they scurry, and they go and hide, in Snoopy's house. And, one of them says, really, can it be that?

211
00:35:47.950 --> 00:35:56.000
Can it be? The world is coming to an end? I thought Elijah was to come first. So, there is some,

212
00:35:56.260 --> 00:35:58.090
Exaggeration there.

213
00:35:58.210 --> 00:35:59.779
But…

214
00:35:59.900 --> 00:36:07.230
I think… don't you think that accounts for, some of the scores, some of the low scores, when you ask people,

215
00:36:07.390 --> 00:36:11.990
What do you think of the justice system? Do you think it's fair? Do you think it's fair to everybody?

216
00:36:12.270 --> 00:36:18.330
Back question that we never ask in the poll, do you think it's going to be fair to you when you need it?

217
00:36:18.440 --> 00:36:23.409
But that's the question lying on the table. And the…

218
00:36:23.750 --> 00:36:30.770
The growing answer is, I don't know, I'm not sure, I'm not sure the promise is going to be there.

219
00:36:31.200 --> 00:36:33.470
Now, those,

220
00:36:33.820 --> 00:36:41.930
Here, I think the response, can be a little different, because we should encourage, each other on the bench.

221
00:36:42.220 --> 00:36:45.510
And as lawyers, we should encourage the branch

222
00:36:45.710 --> 00:36:49.989
To, hold the rhetoric down a little bit.

223
00:36:50.260 --> 00:36:58.499
It's… first of all, it's illogical. Why would you serve on a collegial bench with people who would destroy society?

224
00:36:58.600 --> 00:37:15.759
If the guy sitting down the table from you really is plotting to destroy society, why are you sitting next to him? And just saying, well, I wish he wouldn't do it. So there's not… it's… it's really… the exaggeration is illogical.

225
00:37:16.230 --> 00:37:21.120
But it's also destructive. My grandma used to tell me.

226
00:37:21.310 --> 00:37:27.349
An aphorism that maybe you've heard. She said, it's a dirty bird that fouls its own nest.

227
00:37:27.770 --> 00:37:34.979
And, again, If, this is what's going on in the justice system and on the court.

228
00:37:35.500 --> 00:37:38.589
Why are you part of it? Why don't you go do something else?

229
00:37:38.720 --> 00:37:41.149
And so…

230
00:37:41.660 --> 00:38:00.229
response need… the response needs to be to the participants in that process. Tone it down, keep it, more, issue-oriented, and not so personal. I've served for 36 years on the Supreme Court of Texas.

231
00:38:01.160 --> 00:38:19.099
We had some sharp opinions every once in a while, but it wasn't routine, it wasn't regular, and now it almost never happens. Usually, if somebody writes too sharp an opinion on that court, somebody down the hall will say.

232
00:38:19.120 --> 00:38:22.139
You know, Nathan, you really want to write that, and you think.

233
00:38:22.180 --> 00:38:31.709
I probably don't. And so there's a lot of peer pressure to try to tone it down, but there needs to be more of that so that the message to the people

234
00:38:32.010 --> 00:38:41.969
is, this is a justice system you can trust, that we're trying to get it right. And calling each other names and insinuating that you're not is not helping.

235
00:38:42.470 --> 00:38:50.830
This is really a big picture mine, because of access to justice, as the Dean spoke about.

236
00:38:51.770 --> 00:38:55.689
We may need to make the justice system more user-friendly.

237
00:38:56.020 --> 00:39:03.049
People have joked, It's not really a joke, I guess, that if,

238
00:39:03.340 --> 00:39:08.140
The… if the courts were a grocery business, we'd be bankrupt.

239
00:39:08.240 --> 00:39:23.820
Because we just don't care what the customers think. It's our show. You gotta sit where we tell you. You gotta stand up when we ask you to. You gotta come and stay as long as we say you need to. You gotta find parking, you gotta take off work.

240
00:39:23.820 --> 00:39:37.829
All of this for a 5-minute hearing in a custody case, or a 10-minute, examination in a misdemeanor case, and then fine. After you've lost a day, you can go on about your business.

241
00:39:37.850 --> 00:39:51.749
So, that just, is becoming intolerable to a society that's used to ordering food on one of these and having it delivered. It's just, not the… it's not something that we…

242
00:39:52.230 --> 00:39:58.240
can, Appreciate in, the justice system that is too…

243
00:39:58.440 --> 00:40:00.839
important for us. So, why do we do with that?

244
00:40:01.430 --> 00:40:17.360
There's… of the, 20 million civil cases that I mentioned to you earlier, they don't need the federal rules of civil procedure. They don't even need the Texas rules of civil procedure. They need, stylized dockets, differentiation.

245
00:40:17.450 --> 00:40:29.189
Differentiated outcomes, procedures that are tailored, to eviction cases, or to debt collection cases. Debt collection is a third of the state's

246
00:40:29.370 --> 00:40:32.999
Civil docket. That's how big it is. There's lots of cases.

247
00:40:33.060 --> 00:40:50.459
And then in family cases where they're all so difficult anyway, some, some accommodation of that and some way to treat people, with more professionally, that the, justice system is responding to their needs.

248
00:40:51.900 --> 00:40:58.859
Again, as I said earlier, participants should come away from court proceedings, even if they lost, even if they lose.

249
00:40:59.050 --> 00:41:08.059
Thinking, well, at least it was fair. At least, I got a fair… at least I got to make my argument. At least I was heard.

250
00:41:08.230 --> 00:41:11.349
So many times in the past,

251
00:41:11.480 --> 00:41:25.210
That was the response. You ask a lawyer, when the judge rules against him, what, you know, what do you think about that? And the lawyer used to almost always say, well, I respect the judge, I just dis… I respectfully disagree. When the jury…

252
00:41:25.550 --> 00:41:26.690
Pours you out.

253
00:41:27.460 --> 00:41:31.779
what do people used to say? They'd say, I disagree with the jury.

254
00:41:32.030 --> 00:41:40.699
We may reverse this on appeal, but I respect the jury system. We have to return to that, balance to,

255
00:41:41.160 --> 00:41:47.670
Make sure that the people have confidence that the justice system is doing its business.

256
00:41:47.810 --> 00:41:53.349
Two more ideas, and then I'll stop for questions.

257
00:41:53.730 --> 00:41:57.169
One is we've got to improve access to justice.

258
00:41:57.280 --> 00:42:02.220
We've worked very hard, for the last…

259
00:42:02.400 --> 00:42:05.689
25 years to improve funding.

260
00:42:05.810 --> 00:42:13.679
Texas funds its access to justice programs, I, in my view, generously. They could…

261
00:42:14.260 --> 00:42:20.289
We always ask for more, but, they are always responsive.

262
00:42:20.410 --> 00:42:26.219
I went to ask Lieutenant Governor Patrick for money for access to justice for veterans.

263
00:42:26.490 --> 00:42:30.400
I wanted $3 million, and he said,

264
00:42:31.410 --> 00:42:36.489
Thank God for you, Chief Justice Hecht. I mean, what would we be without you?

265
00:42:36.600 --> 00:42:40.580
It's wonderful that you've thought about this. Budget comes out.

266
00:42:40.790 --> 00:42:45.790
zero for access to justice for veterans. I said,

267
00:42:45.960 --> 00:43:03.760
I went back over and I said, Governor, I thought we were on the same page on this. I must have misheard you. I thought you… oh, no, no, no, no. He says, you know how this… you know how this process plays out. You know, it takes a while, and this is not the final budget. There'll be amendments to the budget. It'll be better.

268
00:43:03.960 --> 00:43:04.750
The…

269
00:43:05.070 --> 00:43:12.459
Two days before the last day of the session, the final budget comes out, there's zero for access to justice for veterans.

270
00:43:12.650 --> 00:43:15.290
So I went over there on the last day,

271
00:43:15.900 --> 00:43:17.639
When it was too late to do anything.

272
00:43:18.030 --> 00:43:23.309
And I said, I sure am disappointed, Governor. This is really a…

273
00:43:23.760 --> 00:43:26.519
a pressing need, and I wish,

274
00:43:27.130 --> 00:43:42.480
we could have gotten something done about it. It's just, Chief, you know, you know how this process works. You'll be back, it was a new idea, it didn't get the headwind that it needed, you know, you'll be back next session, we'll get it done.

275
00:43:43.100 --> 00:43:54.870
So, I went back to my office, I was sitting there all demoralized, and our general counsel called me about 2 hours later and said the Budget Office just put out corrections.

276
00:43:55.110 --> 00:43:59.169
And there's $3 million for access to justice for veterans.

277
00:43:59.340 --> 00:44:03.130
That was a correction. And,

278
00:44:03.710 --> 00:44:05.860
I told the governor, I said,

279
00:44:06.010 --> 00:44:18.890
I'm gonna tell that story, and whenever I tell it, I'm gonna say, thank you to you, because I knew he had done it personally, and that it's,

280
00:44:20.150 --> 00:44:23.550
the… It's more powerful, to be…

281
00:44:23.890 --> 00:44:30.179
Lieutenant Governor of Texas than it is to be Chief Justice, but I… I think everybody knows that.

282
00:44:30.560 --> 00:44:37.100
And then two sessions later, Governor Abbott said $3 million is chicken feed,

283
00:44:37.400 --> 00:44:56.899
You need at least twice, at least twice that much. So, that's… the legislative response to a real, demonstrable, pressing, justifiable need has been, to help fund it. Doesn't solve the problem, the problem is very big, but it goes a long way.

284
00:44:58.590 --> 00:45:14.250
We can, this is controversial, but about 12 states have authorized non-lawyer professionals, sometimes licensed, to perform what would otherwise be considered,

285
00:45:14.480 --> 00:45:20.940
legal practice in very limited areas. Maybe only in, legal aid?

286
00:45:21.190 --> 00:45:30.889
Maybe only with the supervision of a lawyer, but in any event, to try to help provide manpower, to solve the problem.

287
00:45:31.000 --> 00:45:37.049
And, of course, I don't have time to talk about it tonight, but AI is changing everything.

288
00:45:37.440 --> 00:45:40.009
And it can change,

289
00:45:40.290 --> 00:45:43.429
The provision of legal aid, and we're working hard

290
00:45:44.250 --> 00:45:49.140
to see that that happens. And then finally, I just say to my colleagues,

291
00:45:49.650 --> 00:45:59.279
We, across the country, not my colleagues here, I don't have a problem with my colleagues here, we've just got to scrupulously stay out of politics. We've just got to…

292
00:45:59.400 --> 00:46:13.790
stay completely out. Judicial independence is the exception in a democracy. It's not the rule. The other two branches don't have it, and so we've got to earn it and show that it is justified

293
00:46:14.150 --> 00:46:18.410
And, to prove that…

294
00:46:18.550 --> 00:46:30.579
just… President Jefferson's fears were mistaken, and that Hamilton was right. Judges can be accountable to the rule of law even without being elected.

295
00:46:31.360 --> 00:46:33.989
And in that respect.

296
00:46:34.880 --> 00:46:42.170
Justice Sondock is a model for us all. She was when she was appointed. She is to this good day.

297
00:46:42.950 --> 00:46:48.539
And it's a privilege for me to be here in her name. Thank you very much. I'm happy to take questions.

298
00:46:55.880 --> 00:46:56.769
Yes, sir?

299
00:47:01.990 --> 00:47:04.620
Question 1: Insulating judges, in particular.

300
00:47:04.850 --> 00:47:18.359
Article 1 and Article 2 judges, like, administrative law judges, do you think all types of insulation are equal, or should administrative law judges have some different type of insulation than is currently in place?

301
00:47:18.690 --> 00:47:33.999
Answer: For one thing, specialized judges like that, need to have the specialized qualifications to do the job. So, we do not, we expect, the district judges in Texas and the county…

302
00:47:34.300 --> 00:47:38.469
Judges, county court law judges, to be generalists.

303
00:47:39.310 --> 00:47:49.159
So, they may have had a real estate background, they may have had, personal injury background, they may have had a contract background, and…

304
00:47:49.270 --> 00:47:56.870
There, we don't… say that they… because it's one or the other, they're not qualified to be judges.

305
00:47:57.400 --> 00:48:02.619
But if you want to serve as an administrative judge in an area that's narrow.

306
00:48:02.770 --> 00:48:19.869
Like oil and gas, or like real estate regulation, or, zoning, or any of the kinds of areas where you have judges, dealing with very narrow areas. They need to demonstrate the expertise to do that.

307
00:48:19.960 --> 00:48:29.310
And I think there is, this is what I saw, there is more, response.

308
00:48:29.460 --> 00:48:31.359
To the audience.

309
00:48:31.760 --> 00:48:40.390
And when litigant after litigant complains that the administrative law judge is not doing it right and is costing me time and money.

310
00:48:40.530 --> 00:48:45.280
There's probably gonna be a response to that. So, there is some of it.

311
00:48:45.700 --> 00:48:52.470
And in my view, it's mostly due to the specialized nature of the… of the office.

312
00:48:55.280 --> 00:48:56.170
Yes, sir?

313
00:49:02.220 --> 00:49:15.419
Question 2: Which do you prefer, being a judge or an attorney, and why would you go from being the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the second largest state in the country, and then go into private practice?

314
00:49:15.630 --> 00:49:23.529
Answer: Well, that last part of the last part of the question is easy to answer. It's because of this.

315
00:49:23.860 --> 00:49:32.259
The people have decided that judges should retire, essentially when they're 75. It's more complicated than that, but…

316
00:49:32.420 --> 00:49:34.929
But that's the basic rule.

317
00:49:35.370 --> 00:49:41.319
That didn't used to always… that's not always been the case. I think the… the,

318
00:49:41.780 --> 00:49:50.730
The forced retirement, age retirement, was first passed in the 70s, maybe the late 60s.

319
00:49:50.870 --> 00:49:58.699
And, it's, you know, it's controversial a little bit. But, most of the states,

320
00:49:59.370 --> 00:50:07.700
require judges to… retire at some age. Now, in Vermont, that age is 90, so…

321
00:50:08.400 --> 00:50:19.720
If that's not life tenure, it's pretty close to it. In New York, it's 70. Here, it's 75. It varies across, the country.

322
00:50:19.760 --> 00:50:29.409
But only in 3 states, are judges elected for life, appointed for life, like they are in the federal system. They're all in the Northeast.

323
00:50:29.470 --> 00:50:39.170
So, that's just… That's something that we've decided. On what did I like best, I thought.

324
00:50:39.480 --> 00:50:43.770
It was the honor of a lifetime for… to serve the bench, and

325
00:50:44.050 --> 00:50:52.239
I enjoyed the trial bench, for the 5 years I was there in the appellate court for the next 38 years, and

326
00:50:52.350 --> 00:50:58.229
It's just, it's a real responsibility that

327
00:50:58.690 --> 00:51:06.119
That feels, important and feels, worthwhile when you know other people are putting their problems

328
00:51:06.360 --> 00:51:09.789
In your hands, and counting on a right decision, so…

329
00:51:09.980 --> 00:51:16.720
That said, I probably would have retired, anyway, pretty close to then.

330
00:51:16.900 --> 00:51:21.329
Just because at some point, Enough's enough,

331
00:51:21.510 --> 00:51:28.120
They passed a bill that raised the retirement age to 79. They offered a bill. It didn't pass.

332
00:51:29.210 --> 00:51:30.959
And I told my wife,

333
00:51:31.290 --> 00:51:38.359
at breakfast that, there was a bill, I didn't know about it, to raise the retirement age to 79, and she said.

334
00:51:38.710 --> 00:51:41.639
I'm voting against that, she said.

335
00:51:42.140 --> 00:51:47.340
Enough's… enough's enough. So,

336
00:51:47.530 --> 00:51:54.009
I would, I would have stayed maybe another year or two, but the people have had enough.

337
00:51:55.890 --> 00:51:57.010
Who else?

338
00:51:57.670 --> 00:51:58.559
Yes, sir?

340
00:52:04.410 --> 00:52:21.620
Question 3: Courts always have to come up with, tests, and obviously personal attacks are off the table, but, any thoughts about useful tests for when a court is starting to slide into political, turf versus strictly legal?

341
00:52:22.540 --> 00:52:24.080
Answer: Yeah,

342
00:52:24.330 --> 00:52:32.650
No, not really. My first part of the answer will be, you kind of know it when you see it.

343
00:52:32.960 --> 00:52:38.149
Sometimes, it's very complicated, and sometimes,

344
00:52:38.920 --> 00:52:56.110
The issues are serious, and sometimes they're not. A couple, three, four years ago, it may be before Justice Wise's time, I can't remember. But one of the district judges in Texas, put a MAGA flag behind the bench.

345
00:52:57.080 --> 00:52:59.100
And, there were complaints.

346
00:52:59.700 --> 00:53:08.320
And, I thought it was a real credit to the Conduct Commission, people that judge judicial…

347
00:53:08.550 --> 00:53:12.770
ethics and discipline. They said, Judge, Take it down.

348
00:53:12.950 --> 00:53:14.499
Don't do that anymore.

349
00:53:14.720 --> 00:53:20.499
And that was enough, because he was not out kinda, I don't know.

350
00:53:21.210 --> 00:53:34.239
way over the line. It was over the line, no question about that. Another judge, put the, three, the multicolor flag on her, on her bench, and the conduct commission said, just.

351
00:53:34.490 --> 00:53:36.020
Just take it down.

352
00:53:36.440 --> 00:53:42.949
We don't, you know, the judges are people, you can do what you want to on your personal time, don't bring it in the courtroom.

353
00:53:44.620 --> 00:53:53.960
That said, there are some times when, the judge is just clearly out of line. We have a commission that…

354
00:53:54.770 --> 00:54:02.149
Justice Wise is on and has led for years. Those are hard cases.

355
00:54:02.690 --> 00:54:06.800
Because sometimes it doesn't seem like that big a deal, and sometimes…

356
00:54:07.100 --> 00:54:09.969
It really is a big deal.

357
00:54:10.460 --> 00:54:18.120
They, of course, have… we've got canons of ethics that say, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this.

358
00:54:18.190 --> 00:54:25.069
But probably the one at the bottom of the list, of every list that you make.

359
00:54:25.120 --> 00:54:39.839
The canon of behavior at the bottom says, don't do anything that would be bad. Don't do anything that would cause people to, that would demean the judiciary, that would cause people

360
00:54:40.010 --> 00:54:53.050
To lose trust in it. Well, of course, that's as big as the world. So these days, sometimes the activity is blatant enough that you can just say, stop. Sometimes you have to prosecute it.

361
00:54:53.180 --> 00:54:57.790
But I think, the encouragement…

362
00:54:58.160 --> 00:55:07.020
I think short of that, short of going to the Commission of Judicial Conduct, if the local bar association said.

363
00:55:07.220 --> 00:55:10.750
You know… This is not good for…

364
00:55:10.990 --> 00:55:15.239
Houston, that, some judges behaving the way

365
00:55:16.340 --> 00:55:18.810
Back in my day, when I was on the trial bench.

366
00:55:18.920 --> 00:55:22.019
They didn't come see me, but…

367
00:55:22.570 --> 00:55:30.070
They came to see some of my colleagues every once in a while, and a group of lawyers from the Bar Association would just

368
00:55:30.230 --> 00:55:32.419
Come to the judge's chambers and say.

369
00:55:34.010 --> 00:55:40.480
judges, you're getting a lot of criticism. And usually that had good effect, but…

370
00:55:40.980 --> 00:55:45.820
When you read about the serious accusations.

371
00:55:45.940 --> 00:55:51.089
That, for example, the administration is making against judges.

372
00:55:51.780 --> 00:56:00.760
because they are deciding cases on deportation, or tariffs, or detention, or all these issues.

373
00:56:01.100 --> 00:56:05.299
Because of their political leanings, and not because of the law.

374
00:56:05.470 --> 00:56:13.000
That's pretty serious, and, but again, we just have to monitor it and try to…

375
00:56:14.060 --> 00:56:15.519
Try to discourage it.

376
00:56:15.850 --> 00:56:19.610
Every time we can. And,

377
00:56:20.330 --> 00:56:24.490
Again, it doesn't always have to be impeachment, it can be something like.

378
00:56:24.660 --> 00:56:29.740
Why don't you quit doing that? And… Sometimes that works, too.

379
00:56:32.020 --> 00:56:32.970
Yes, sir.

380
00:56:41.460 --> 00:57:00.090
Question 4: Thank you, Justice Hecht. At the beginning of your lecture, you mentioned some statistics, and it seemed like maybe there was more trust by the public in the federal judiciary than the state bench. I'm wondering if you think the reason for that might be the difference between election and appointment, and if so, if you think that difference has some

381
00:57:01.100 --> 00:57:04.180
Involvement in a possible solution to this problem.

382
00:57:04.540 --> 00:57:12.190
Answer: I didn't go into… I went into the Supreme Court, and they're, they're about 10 points lower

383
00:57:12.420 --> 00:57:14.719
In the st… in the rankings.

384
00:57:14.840 --> 00:57:24.449
Than the state courts are. There are ta- there are puzzles on the rest of the courts in the federal system, and,

385
00:57:25.020 --> 00:57:34.010
I haven't seen one in the last couple of years, but before, like, 2 years, 3 years ago, the state courts did a little better

386
00:57:34.600 --> 00:57:40.240
Than the federal courts across the board.

387
00:57:41.450 --> 00:57:49.450
To me, that's not entirely fair, because many of the decisions that people react to…

388
00:57:49.560 --> 00:57:51.519
Our federal court decisions.

389
00:57:51.680 --> 00:57:57.169
So, if, if you don't like, Justice of the Peace's…

390
00:57:57.450 --> 00:58:06.059
rulings on eviction cases or on, debt collection, you know, it's probably not going to make the front page of the Chronicle.

391
00:58:06.460 --> 00:58:11.400
If you render a very important decision, like federal courts often do.

392
00:58:11.530 --> 00:58:14.520
Then people are likely to say.

393
00:58:17.710 --> 00:58:24.330
they don't… they do or don't like the court. Chief Justice Roberts himself has said,

394
00:58:24.760 --> 00:58:29.519
That the adverse press his court gets, hurts the state courts.

395
00:58:29.840 --> 00:58:43.669
And I think that's true. It's, it's good of him to say it. I don't know what can be done about it, but it, but I think it kind of flows that way. But the, the…

396
00:58:44.440 --> 00:58:51.030
frustration much of the frustration on the state side is with the way courts are run.

397
00:58:51.290 --> 00:59:00.300
It's with how much… how long it takes, how much money… how I've been put out of work, all these things, all these infrastructure costs.

398
00:59:00.590 --> 00:59:03.530
Which we… which… We could work on.

399
00:59:14.200 --> 00:59:29.450
Dean Leonard M. Baynes: Thank you so much, Chief. I really appreciate it. I also want to acknowledge we have 200 people online, to this, including our audience, there's over 250 people. So welcome to the online audience, and thank you again, Chief Judge Hecht.

400
00:59:29.530 --> 00:59:38.290
for really a scintillating, interesting, thought-provoking, and very relevant conversation for what we're going through today. So thank you so much.