Podcast appearances and mentions of Barbara K Olson

(Ticketed event)On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School

(Ticketed event)On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.Featuring:Ms. Bari Weiss, Founder & Editor, The Free PressIntroduction: Mr. Theodore W. Ullyot, Co-Chairman, Board of Visitors, The Federalist Society

Months ago, I was asked to give a lecture at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention. It was a surprising invitation for a number of reasons. First, I am not a lawyer. Second: I am not a member of the Federalist Society—the prominent conservative and libertarian legal organization. (If the name rings a bell it's probably because you've heard of it in the context of the hearings of any of the conservative justices who currently sit on the court.)  Third: If you look at the people who previously gave this particular lecture—Supreme Court Justices, Attorney Generals, people like Bill Barr, Don McGahn, and John Roberts—the idea that I would be on that list seemed nuts. But I accepted. Mostly because I was being asked to give the Barbara K. Olson lecture. Olson was 45 years old, a lawyer and a political commentator at the top of her game when she boarded American Airlines flight 77 on September 11, 2001. She was flying to Los Angeles that day so she could appear on Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect, and because she had changed her flight to have a birthday dinner with her husband, Ted. Barbara was murdered along with 3,000 other Americans that day. She managed to summon the composure, courage and clarity to call her husband twice in those horrifying moments before the plane slammed into the Pentagon.  Her husband, Ted Olson, has among the most impressive resumes you'll find. But most important to me and my family: he argued in support of gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. I had many ideas for this lecture before October 7. But after the world-transforming events of that day, I felt there was only one thing to talk about: the fight for the West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?".On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.Featuring:Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn

Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture -- Mr. Peter A. Thiel, Technology Entrepreneur, Investor, and Philanthropist Mayflower Hotel Washington, DC --- Thiel Talks is an audio archive of Peter Thiel's ideas. New audio every Saturday. Inquiries to peterthielaudio@gmail.com

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society held the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The lecture featured Attorney General William Barr, who discussed the development of the role of the executive in the federal government.On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Hon. William P. BarrIntroduction: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society held the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The lecture featured Attorney General William Barr, who discussed the development of the role of the executive in the federal government.On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Hon. William P. BarrIntroduction: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.On November 16, 2018, Judge Jeffrey Sutton offered the annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Sutton reflected on the roles of state constitutions, state courts, and state governments in the formation of American constitutional law.Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyFor more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.On November 16, 2018, Judge Jeffrey Sutton offered the annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Sutton reflected on the roles of state constitutions, state courts, and state governments in the formation of American constitutional law.Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyFor more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom.Mr. Donald F. McGahn, II, White House CounselIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyFor more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom.Mr. Donald F. McGahn, II, White House CounselIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyFor more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.

Learn a bit about our next Supreme Court Justice -  Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch - President Donald Trump nominates Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of The United States of America On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2013, the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. 0:09 I want to welcome you all 0:12 13th annual Barbara 0:14 memorial lecture I am eugene meyer 0:17 President of the Federal society and 0:19 this memorial lecture series started as 0:22 many of you know with Ted Olson 0:24 inaugural lecture which reminded us of 0:26 what it means to be an American and how 0:28 are legal tradition is part of our 0:30 identity as Americans both dead and 0:33 Barbara understood this disconnection 0:36 between our tradition our identity we 0:40 want the lecture series to remind 0:42 lawyers of it so that they foster legal 0:44 principles that advanced individual 0:46 freedom personal responsibility and the 0:48 rule of law tends inaugural lecture was 0:52 followed by ken starr Robert Bork 0:55 Justice Scalia judge Randolph Vice 0:58 President Cheney and chief justice 1:00 roberts and judges he gets Jones Douglas 1:03 Ginsburg and Dennis Jacob's former 1:06 attorney General Michael Mukasey and 1:08 entrepreneur Peter teal that brings us 1:11 to today's lecture is my honor to 1:14 introduce for today's lecture the 1:17 Honorable Neil gorgeous is a judge for 1:20 the US Court of Appeals on the tenth 1:22 circuit where he served since 1986 1:25 before his clerkship a force judgeship 1:28 rather he clerked 1:31 all the way clerkship applications or 1:34 and things are going these days you have 1:36 no idea what the order is gonna fit 1:40 I actually think they're going to send 1:41 out the clerkship applications or with 1:43 with the emits with the additions to law 1:45 school the way way it's going but anyone 1:47 on before his clerkship he clerked for 1:49 justices wieden kennedy and on the court 1:52 of appeals for judges and tell he was a 1:55 partner Kelly cuber and principal deputy 1:57 associate attorney general in addition 2:00 to his judge ship is also currently an 2:03 adjunct law professor at the University 2:04 of Colorado where he he taught what he 2:06 taught yesterday accident yesterday 2:08 evening and I'd say beyond his paper 2:13 resume judge course which is widely 2:15 viewed as one of the best legal minds of 2:17 his generation 2:19 additionally even as young age he has 2:22 met heard many of his clerks who have 2:25 gone on too many prestigious legal jobs 2:27 including clerkship for the US supreme 2:29 court without further ado it is my honor 2:33 to introduce to you judge neil questions 2:46 actually Jean with the judicial salaries 2:50 being what they are and clerkship 2:52 bonuses what they become I've been more 2:58 than tempted to throw in another 2:59 application justice candidate see where 3:02 it goes 3:05 I'm not sure I want to be a law partner 3:07 again but I wouldn't mind being putting 3:08 those little room and told right briefs 3:10 all day for the price that they're 3:11 getting paid 3:12 Eric thank you for that very kind 3:14 introduction 3:15 it's an honor to be with you in a 3:18 special pleasure to be part of a lecture 3:20 series dedicated to the memory Barbara 3:22 Olson and the causes that she held dear 3:26 the rule of law limited government and 3:29 human liberty and it's not a little dot 3:31 little bit daunting to be added the list 3:33 of folks you've mentioned who given this 3:35 talk before 3:36 let me begin by asking whether any of 3:41 you have ever suffered through a case 3:43 that sounds like this one in the course 3:46 of time this suit has become so 3:48 complicated that no man alive knows what 3:52 it means a long procession of judges has 3:57 come in and going out the Legion of 3:59 bills and the suit had become 4:01 transformed into mere Bills of mortality 4:04 but still it drags its very length 4:07 before the court parentally hopeless 4:11 how familiar to set 4:14 could it be a line lifted maybe from a 4:16 speaker at a recent electronic discovery 4:18 conference from a brief for sanctions 4:23 your latest case maybe from a recent 4:26 judicial performance complaint 4:28 well of course the line comes from 4:31 Dickens Bleak House published 1853 it 4:35 still resonates today though because the 4:37 laws promise of deliberation and due 4:39 process sometimes ironically invites the 4:42 in justices of delay and ear resolution 4:45 like any human Enterprise the laws 4:48 crooked timber occasionally produces the 4:50 opposite of the intended effect we turn 4:53 to the law earnestly to promote a worthy 4:55 idea and wind up with a host of 4:57 unwelcome side effects that do more harm 4:59 than good 5:00 in fact when you think about it the 5:02 whole business is something an irony we 5:04 depend upon the rule of law to guarantee 5:06 freedom but we have to give up freedom 5:08 to live under the laws rules and around 5:11 about way that leads me to the topic I'd 5:14 like to discuss with you tonight laws 5:16 irony Dickens had a keen eye for it but 5:21 even he was only reworking familiar 5:22 themes Hamlet rude the laws delay girder 5:26 left the practice of law and discussed 5:28 after witnessing thousands of aging 5:30 cases waiting vainly for resolution in 5:33 the courts of his time 5:34 demosthenes made similar complaints 5:37 2,000 years ago and truth is I fully 5:40 expect lawyers and judges to carry on 5:42 similar conversations about the laws 5:44 ironies 2,000 years from now but just 5:49 because some unwelcome ironies maybe as 5:52 endemic to law as they are to life 5:54 Dickens would remind us that's hardly 5:56 reason to let them go unremarked and 5:58 then addressed so it is I'd like to 6:01 begin by discussing a few of the laws 6:03 ironies that I imagine he would consider 6:05 worthy of attention by us in our own 6:08 time consider first hour version of the 6:12 Bleak House irony 6:14 yes i'm referring to civil discovery 6:18 the adoption of the modern rules of 6:21 civil procedure in 1938 marked the start 6:25 of a self-proclaimed experiment with 6:28 expansive pretrial discovery something 6:31 previously unknown to the federal courts 6:33 more than 70 years later we still call 6:36 those rules the new and the modern rules 6:39 of civil procedure that's a pretty odd 6:42 thing when you think about it maybe the 6:44 only thing that really sounds newer 6:46 modern after 70 years is keith richards 6:49 of The Rolling Stones some might say 6:54 looks like he's done some experimenting 6:56 to in any event or 1938 forefathers 7:02 expressly rested their modern discovery 7:04 experiment on the assumption that with 7:07 ready access to an opponent's 7:09 information parties to civil disputes 7:11 would achieve fair and cheaper merits 7:13 based resolutions 7:15 how's that working out for you 7:18 does modern discovery practice really 7:22 lead to faster and more efficient 7:24 resolutions based on the merits 7:26 I don't doubt it does in many cases but 7:28 should we be concerned when eighty 7:30 percent of the american college of trial 7:32 lawyers say the discovery costs and 7:34 delays keep injured parties from 7:36 bringing valid claims to court or 7:39 concern when 70-percent also say 7:42 attorneys use discovery cost is a threat 7:44 to force settlements that aren't merits 7:47 based at all 7:48 have we may be gone so far down the road 7:51 of civil discovery that ironically 7:53 enough we begun to undermine the 7:55 purposes that animated our journey the 7:57 first place 7:58 what we have today to be sure is not 8:01 your father's discovery producing 8:04 discovery anymore doesn't mean rolling a 8:05 stack of bankers boxes across the street 8:09 we live in an age when every bit and 8:11 byte of information is stored seemingly 8:12 forever and is always retrievable if 8:15 sometimes only at the cost of a small 8:17 fortune today the world sends 50 8:20 trillion emails a year an average 8:22 employees sends or receives over a 8:23 hundred everyday that doesn't begin to 8:25 count the billions of instant messages 8:27 shooting around the globe 8:30 this isn't a world the writers of the 8:31 discovery rules could have imagined in 8:33 1938 no matter how modern they were no 8:37 surprise then that many people now 8:39 simply opt out of the civil justice 8:41 system altogether private ATR bounds but 8:45 even now the federal government has 8:46 begun avoiding its own court system 8:49 recently for example it opted for 8:51 private ADR to handle claims arising 8:53 from the BP oil spill 8:55 now that may be an understandable 8:57 development given the costs and delays 8:58 inherent in modern civil practice but it 9:01 raises questions to about the 9:03 transparency and independence of the 9:05 decision-making the lack of the 9:07 development of precedent in the future 9:09 role of our courts and civic life for 9:13 society aspiring to live under the rule 9:15 of law does this represent an advanced 9:17 perhaps something else we might even ask 9:21 what part the rise of discoveries played 9:23 in the demise of the trial surely other 9:26 factors are play here given the 9:27 disappearance criminal trials as well 9:29 but we've now trained generations of 9:32 attorneys as discovery artists rather 9:34 than trial lawyers they're skilled in 9:37 the game of imposing invading costs and 9:40 delays their poets of the nasty gram 9:43 able to write interrogatories in iambic 9:47 pentameter get terrified of trial the 9:53 founders thought trials were a bulwark 9:55 of the rule of law as far as Hamilton 9:58 saw the only room for debate was over 9:59 when / weathered retrials were in his 10:02 words either a valuable safeguard the 10:04 liberty with a very palladium 10:06 self-government what is that still 10:08 common ground today no doubt our modern 10:11 discovery experiment is well-intentioned 10:13 get one of its effects has been to 10:15 contribute to the death of an 10:17 institution once thought essential to 10:19 the rule of law 10:20 what about our criminal justice system 10:23 you might ask it surely bears its share 10:27 of ironies to consider this one without 10:30 question the discipline of writing the 10:33 law down of Cardiff eyeing it advances 10:35 the laws interest in fair notice but 10:38 today we have about 5,000 federal 10:41 criminal statutes on the books 10:43 most of them added in the last few 10:45 decades and the spigot keeps pourin with 10:48 literally hundreds of new statutory 10:50 crimes think every single year 10:53 neither does that begin to count the 10:55 thousands of additional regulatory 10:56 crimes buried in the federal register 10:58 there are so many crimes cowled in the 11:02 numbing fine print of those pages the 11:05 scholars have given up counting and are 11:07 now debating their number when he led 11:10 the Senate Judiciary Committee Joe Biden 11:12 worried that we have assumed a tendency 11:14 to federalize quote everything that 11:16 walks talks and moves maybe we should 11:19 say hoots too because it's now a federal 11:23 crime to misuse the likeness of woodsy 11:25 the owl or is more words give a hoot 11:29 don't pollute businessmen who import 11:32 lobster tails and plastic bags rather 11:34 than cardboard boxes can be brought up 11:36 on charges mattress sellers remove that 11:39 little tag 11:40 yes they're probably federal criminals 11:42 to whether because of Public Choice 11:45 problems or otherwise there appears to 11:47 be a ratchet relentlessly clicking away 11:49 always in the direction of more never 11:52 fewer federal criminal walls some reply 11:55 that the growing number of federal 11:56 crimes isn't out of proportion to our 11:58 population and its growth others suggest 12:01 that the proliferation of federal 12:02 criminal laws can be mitigated by 12:04 allowing the mistake of law defense to 12:06 be more widely asserted but isn't there 12:09 a trouble irony lurking here in any 12:11 event without written laws we lack fair 12:14 notice of the rules we as citizens have 12:16 to obey but with too many written laws 12:19 don't we invite a new kind of fair 12:22 notice problem and what happens to 12:24 individual freedom and equality when the 12:26 criminal law comes to cover so many 12:28 facets of daily life 12:30 the prosecutors can almost choose their 12:32 targets with impunity the sort of 12:36 excesses of executive authority invited 12:38 by too few written laws led to the 12:40 rebellion against King John and the 12:42 ceiling of the Magna Carta one of the 12:44 great advances in the rule of law and 12:46 history bears warning the too many the 12:49 too much and too much an accessible law 12:51 can lead to executive access as well 12:55 Caligula sought to protect his authority 12:58 by publishing the law a hand so small 13:01 and posted so high that no one could 13:04 really be sure what was and wasn't 13:05 forbidden no doubt 13:08 all the better to keep us on our toes 13:10 sorry in federal 62 more seriously 13:19 Madison warned that when laws become 13:20 just a paper blizzard citizens are left 13:22 unable to know what the law isn't to 13:24 conform their conduct to it it's an 13:27 irony of the law that either too much or 13:28 too little can impair Liberty our aim 13:31 here has to be for a golden mean and it 13:33 may be worth asking today if we've 13:35 strayed too far from it 13:37 ok beyond the law itself there are other 13:40 ironies of ironies here emanating from 13:43 our law schools target-rich environment 13:47 you say well let's be kind of the 13:50 professors in the room and just take one 13:51 example in our zeal for high academic 13:54 standards we have developed a dreary 13:57 bill of particulars every law school 13:59 must satisfy the win ABA accreditation 14:02 law schools must employ a full-time 14:04 librarian they're not a part-timer they 14:08 must provide extensive tenure guarantees 14:10 they invite trouble if their student 14:12 faculty ratio reaches 32 one out the 14:15 same ratio found many in public 14:17 procol schools keep in mind too that 14:20 under ABA standards adjunct professors 14:22 with actual practice experience includes 14:25 me here account only as one-fifth of an 14:28 instructor 14:32 maybe they're onto something after all 14:34 might be worth pausing to ask whether 14:39 commands like these contribute enough to 14:41 learning to justify the barriers to 14:44 entry and the limits on access to 14:46 justice that they impose a legal 14:49 education can cause students today two 14:51 hundred thousand dollars that's on top 14:54 of an equally swollen some for an 14:57 undergraduate degree yet another a VA 14:59 accreditation requirement in England 15:03 students can earn a law degree in three 15:05 years is under graduates or in one year 15:08 of study after college 15:09 all of which must be followed by 15:11 on-the-job training and none of this is 15:14 thought to be a threat to the rule of 15:15 law there one might wonder whether the 15:18 sort of expensive an extensive 15:20 homogeneity we demand is essential to 15:22 the rule of law here 15:25 alright so far I've visited ironies 15:28 where the law aims at one virtue and 15:31 risks a corresponding vice but it seems 15:34 to me that the laws most remarkable 15:36 irony today comes from precisely the 15:39 opposite direction of ice that hints at 15:41 virtues in the rule of law today our 15:45 court our culture positively buzzes with 15:48 cynicism about the law are shared 15:51 profession and project so many see law 15:54 is the work of robe hacks and shiny 15:57 suited shills judges who ruled by 16:00 personal policy preference lawyers who 16:03 seek to razzle-dazzle them on this view 16:07 the only rule of law is a will to power 16:09 baby in a dark moment you've fallen prey 16:13 to doubts along these lines yourself but 16:17 i wonder whether the laws greatest irony 16:20 might just be the hope obscured by the 16:22 cynics shadow 16:24 I wonder whether cynicism about the law 16:26 flourishes so freely only because for 16:29 all its blemishes the rule of law in our 16:31 society is so fundamentally successful 16:34 and sometimes it's hard to see a 16:37 wonderful like David Foster Wallace's 16:39 fish surrounded by water 16:43 yet somehow unable to appreciate its 16:46 existence were like Chesterton's 16:48 man-on-the-street who's asked out of the 16:51 blue 16:51 why he prefers civilization to barbarism 16:53 and who has a hard time stammering out a 16:56 reply because the very multiplicity of 16:58 proof which should make reply easy and 17:01 overwhelming makes it impossible now the 17:05 cynicism surrounding our project our 17:07 profession is easy enough to see when 17:09 Supreme Court justices try to defend 17:11 laws a discipline when they explain 17:13 their jobs interpreting legal texts when 17:17 they evoke and echo the traditional 17:19 federalist 78 conception of a good judge 17:22 their mocked often viciously personally 17:26 leading voices call them deceiving 17:29 warned that behind their a nine-page 17:32 facades lurk cruising partisans even law 17:36 professors hurry to the microphone to 17:38 express complete discussed and accuse 17:40 them of perjury and intellectual 17:42 security actual quotes everyone if this 17:47 bleak picture I've sketched were 17:49 inaccurate one if I believe the judges 17:52 and lawyers regularly acted as shoes and 17:54 hacks and hang up the road i turn my 17:57 license but even accounting for my 18:00 native optimism i just don't think 18:02 that's what a life in the law it's about 18:04 heart i doubt you do either as a working 18:08 lawyer I saw time and again the 18:11 creativity intelligence hard work 18:13 applied to a legal problem can make a 18:16 profound difference in a client's life I 18:19 saw judges injuries that while human and 18:21 imperfect strove to hear earnestly and 18:24 decide and partially I never felt my 18:27 arguments to court for political ones 18:29 the ones based on rules of procedure and 18:31 evidence president standard interpretive 18:34 techniques the prosaic but vital stuff 18:37 of a life in the law as a judge now 47 18:41 whatever years I see colleagues everyday 18:46 striving to enforce the Constitution the 18:48 statutes passed by Congress the 18:50 president's to bind us 18:52 the contracts the parties adopted 18:54 sometimes they do so with quiet 18:56 misgivings about the wisdom of the 18:58 regulation addition sometimes was 19:00 concerned about their complicity in a 19:03 doubtful statute but enforcing the law 19:05 all the same believers that ours is 19:08 essentially adjust legal order now 19:11 that's not to suggest that we lawyers 19:13 and judges bear no blame for ages 19:15 cynicism about the law take our self 19:19 adopted Model Rules of Professional 19:20 Conduct they explained that the duty of 19:24 diligence we lawyers or clients and i 19:26 quote does not require the use of 19:29 offensive tactics or preclude treating 19:35 people with courtesy and respect now 19:40 how's that for professional promise to 19:42 the public 19:43 I view is sort of an ethical commandment 19:46 as I tell my students that is a lawyer 19:48 you should do unto others before they 19:49 can do unto you 19:50 no doubt we have to look hard in the 19:56 mirror when our professions reflected 19:58 image and popular culture is no longer 19:59 Atticus Finch but Saul Goodman of course 20:06 we make our share of mistakes to as my 20:08 now teenage daughters gleefully remind 20:10 me 20:11 donning a robe does not make me any 20:13 smarter but the road does mean something 20:16 and not just that I can hide the coffee 20:18 stains on my shirt 20:20 it serves as a reminder of what's 20:22 expected of us what Burke called the 20:24 cold neutrality of an impartial judge it 20:28 serves to is a reminder of the 20:29 relatively modest station as judges are 20:32 meant to occupy a Democratic Society in 20:35 other places judges wear scarlet and 20:37 Irma here we're told to buy our own 20:40 robes and I can attest the standard 20:43 choir outfit at the local uniform supply 20:45 stores a really good deal 20:47 ours is a judiciary of honest black 20:52 polyester in defending laws of coherent 20:57 discipline now I don't mean to suggest 20:59 that every hard legal question as a 21:01 single right answer the Sun platonic for 21:04 absolute truth exists for every crazy 21:06 naughty statute or oiled regulation if 21:09 only you possess superhuman power to 21:11 discern it i don't know about you but I 21:14 haven't met many judges resemble some 21:15 sort of legal Hercules well maybe my old 21:19 boss fire and light but how many of us 21:22 are going to lead the NFL in Russia 21:24 when a lawyer claims absolute 21:27 metaphysical certainty about the meaning 21:29 of some chain of ungrammatical 21:31 prepositional phrases tacked onto the 21:34 end of a run-on sentence buried in some 21:37 sprawling statutory subsection I start 21:41 worrying for questions like those my 21:44 only gospel is skepticism I try not to 21:47 make a dog out of it but to admit the 21:50 disagreement does and will always exist 21:53 over hard and find questions of law like 21:55 that doesn't mean our disagreements are 21:57 matters of personal will of politics 21:59 rather than an honest effort of making 22:01 sense of the legal materials at hand the 22:05 very first case i wrote for the tenth 22:06 circuit to reach the united states 22:08 supreme court involved a close question 22:10 statutory construction and the court 22:12 split 54 Justice Breyer wrote to affirm 22:16 he was joined by justices Thomas 22:19 Ginsburg Alito and Sotomayor Chief 22:25 Justice Roberts descended and he was 22:27 joined by Justice Stevens Scalia and 22:29 Kennedy that's a lineup that the public 22:32 doesn't often hear about but it's the 22:34 sort of thing that happens quietly day 22:37 in and day out in courts throughout our 22:38 country as you know but the legal cynic 22:41 overlooks the vast majority of disputes 22:44 coming to our courts are ones in which 22:45 all judges agree on the outcome intense 22:48 focus on a few cases where we disagree 22:50 suffers from a serious selection effect 22:52 problem over ninety percent of the 22:54 decisions issued by my quarter unanimous 22:56 and that's pretty typical of the federal 22:58 appellate courts forty percent of the 23:01 Supreme Court's cases are unanimous to 23:03 even though they face the toughest 23:05 assignments and nine not three judges 23:07 have to vote in every single dispute in 23:10 fact the Supreme Court's rate of descent 23:12 has been largely stable for 70 years 23:15 you don't hear that this despite the 23:18 fact that back in 1945 eight of the nine 23:20 justices have been appointed by a single 23:22 president and today's sitting justices 23:25 were appointed by five different 23:26 presidents even in those few cases where 23:30 we do disagree the cynic also fails to 23:33 appreciate the nature of our 23:34 disagreement we lawyers and judges may 23:37 dispute which two 23:38 was legal analysis are most appropriate 23:39 for ascertaining a statute's meaning we 23:43 may disagree over the order priority we 23:46 should assign two competing tools and 23:48 the consonants with the Constitution we 23:50 may even disagree over the results are 23:52 agreed tools yield in particular cases 23:54 these disagreements sometimes produce 23:56 familiar lineups but sometimes not 23:58 consider for example the debates between 24:01 Justice Scalia and Thomas over the role 24:03 of the rule entity or their 24:05 disagreements about the degree of 24:07 deference to President or some of the 24:09 debates you've heard today between and 24:11 among textless original lists these 24:15 debates are hugely consequential final 24:17 but their disputes of legal judgment not 24:20 disputes about politics or personal will 24:22 in the hardest cases as well many 24:26 constraints narrow the realm of 24:27 admissible dispute closed factual 24:30 records and adversarial process for 24:32 parties not courts usually determined 24:33 issues for decision standards of review 24:36 the command deference to finders of fact 24:38 the rules requiring us appellate George 24:40 judges to operate and collegial panels 24:42 where we listen learn from one another 24:44 the discipline of writing reason giving 24:46 opinions and the possibility of further 24:48 review to be sure these constraints 24:51 sometimes point in different directions 24:53 i'm not advocating a single right answer 24:55 to every problem but that shouldn't 24:57 obscure how those tools those 24:59 constraints often served to limit the 25:02 latitude available to all judges even 25:05 the cynics imagine judge would like 25:06 nothing more than imposes policy 25:08 preferences on everyone else 25:10 and on top of all that what today 25:12 appears to be a hard case tomorrow 25:14 becomes an easy one and accretion to 25:16 precedent as a new constraint on the 25:18 range of legally available options in 25:20 future cases now maybe maybe i do 25:24 exaggerate the cynicism that seems to 25:27 pervade today or maybe the cynicism i 25:29 see is real but endemic to every place 25:31 and every time and it seems something 25:33 fresh 25:34 only because this is our place in our 25:36 time after all lawyers and judges have 25:39 never been much loved Shakespeare wrote 25:42 the history of King Henry the sixth and 25:44 three parts in all those three plays 25:47 there's only a single joke 25:49 Jack cadence followers come to London 25:52 intent on rebellion and they offer their 25:55 first rallying cry let's kill all the 25:58 lawyers as in fact that he pretty much 26:01 did but but maybe just maybe the 26:06 cynicism about the rule of law whatever 26:08 the place whatever the time is its 26:10 greatest irony 26:12 maybe the cynicism is so apparent in our 26:14 society only because the rule of law 26:16 here for all its problems is so 26:19 successful 26:20 after all who can make so much fun of 26:23 the law without being very sure the law 26:25 makes it safe to do so don't our friends 26:30 our neighbors and we ourselves expect 26:33 and demand not just hope for justice 26:35 based on the rule of law our country 26:39 today shoulders an enormous burden the 26:43 most powerful nation on earth the most 26:45 obvious example of people struggling to 26:48 govern itself under the rule of law our 26:51 mistakes and missteps halted by those 26:54 who do not wish as well they're easy 26:57 enough to see even by those who do 26:59 neither should we try to shuffle our 27:01 problems under the rug 27:03 we have far too many to ignore today 27:06 the fact is the law can be a messy human 27:11 business a disappointment to those 27:13 seeking truth and some absolute sense 27:15 expecting more of the diviner oh except 27:18 for those of us wearing the robes and 27:21 it's easy enough to spot examples where 27:23 the laws ironies are truly better but it 27:26 seems to me that we shouldn't well so 27:29 much on the better that we never savor 27:31 the sweet it is after all our shared 27:34 profession to which we devoted our 27:36 professional lives the law that permits 27:38 us to resolve their disputes without 27:40 resort to violence to organize our 27:42 affairs with some measure of confidence 27:44 is through the careful application of 27:47 the laws existing premises were able to 27:49 adapt and generate new solutions to 27:51 changing social coordination problems as 27:53 they emerge and when done well the law 27:56 permits us to achieve all this in a 27:58 deliberative non-discriminatory and 28:00 transparent 28:00 way those are no small things here then 28:05 is the irony I'd like to leave you with 28:07 tonight if sometimes the cynic and all 28:10 of us fails to see our nation successes 28:14 when it comes to the rule of law 28:16 maybe it's because we're like David 28:17 Foster Wallace's fish was oblivious to 28:20 life-giving water in which it swims 28:22 maybe we overlooked our nation's success 28:25 living under the rule of law only 28:28 because for all our faults that success 28:31 is so obvious it's sometimes hard to see 28:34 thank you  

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2016, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska delivered the lecture. -- This lecture was delivered on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Introduction by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2015, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.