Context Podcast Digital Collection

Doug Exton: Thank you so much for joining us for tonight's Connected Conversation. A program conducted by the Idaho Humanities Council. If you're not familiar with our organization, I encourage you to check out our website, Idaho humanities.org. I'd like to remind you all that you may submit any questions using the Q&A feature located at the bottom of the screen. With me tonight is Doctor Dr. Kerry Hunter, professor at College of Idaho.

It's an honor to have you with us tonight, and I turn it over to you.

Dr. Kerry Hunter: All right. Thank you. Doug. Welcome. Welcome to the College of Idaho. And I'm here, on our campus, in the room that I. Where I'm teaching this this term. I'm teaching in an empty room, because our students are all distance learning. But we are. But we are. We're teaching an interactive way so I can continue using my Socratic way of teaching.

And, I said tonight, I just come up here in the same room where I can feel free to wander around, maybe scribble something on the whiteboard, just to keep me, kind of energized, but, I'll, I'll go ahead and get started. So in 2009, with the help from a grant from the Idaho Humanities Council, I headed off to New Zealand to gain, better insight into their political culture.

Dworkin had, who was a, considered a liberal constitutional law philosopher or scholar professor. Makes a pretty good argument that, you can't allow the get have the majority check the majority. That's like having the fat fox guarding the henhouse. And so, there was to take minority rights seriously. One really does need an activist court willing to, stand up to, legislation and, and rule it unconstitutional.

And examples such as, court cases such as Brown, the Board of Education or the court overturned a previous precedent claiming racial segregation was constitutional. Brown v Board of Education. They overturn that doctrine. The doctors separate, separate but equal. Roe v Wade obviously also came to mind. Comes to mind. New Zealand, however, does not have an American style bill of rights.

They they eventually did pass a a bill of rights, but it's nothing more than another Act of Parliament that has no more authority than any Act of Parliament and can be over, and Parliament can, can, supersede at any time. Nor are the justices empowered to question the constitutionality of the legislature. Their, they don't have a written or what they call an entrenched constitution, like what we have here in the US.

I mean, to the tune of millions of dollars, Maori had also been become an official language in New Zealand, and that Maori were guaranteed a certain number of seats in their parliament. So certainly, their native population was being treated far better than how the US excluded its natives. And all of this was being done without a written constitution.

And, I mean, I was curious, how is it that after 100 years of European settler mistreatment of the Maori, they suddenly started to, make these kinds of changes? They created a like home tribunal, like tribunal, and started hearing cases, to deal with mistreatment of Maori. And over and over I saw examples of New Zealanders capable of caring for minority rights.

law against, beating children, I mean children and she was taking a lot of flak for, creating more of a nanny state. But we need to have a commissioner who look after the children. That's. It's kind of cool to me. I also met with the members of the ombudsman's office, and I'll talk about more about that later.

But the ombudsman, the ombudsman's office is is set up to, look for, for individuals to, well, go ahead and talk about it now for individuals to take complaints if if there's a law that they feel like is mistreating them, they can take the case to the ombudsman's office. They don't have to hire a lawyer.

But it doesn't have the force of law behind it. But the fascinating thing is when the, budget office speaks, people listen. Not much one can say that, Parliament may want to reconsider this particular law in the past because it's having these kinds of negative impacts on real people and again, they can't force the Parliament to make a change.

But the Ombudsman office shares a fair amount of respect in New Zealand or enjoys a fair amount of respect. And because of that, when they do issue a ruling, usually that carries with it a fair amount of clout. Alison met with many, a number of members of Parliament, including a relatively new member, a young lady by the name of Jacinda Ardern.

I also met with members of the press, two former prime ministers. So one future prime minister and two former prime ministers, one of which, has had long advocated, still continues to advocate for an American style constitution for New Zealand. He was actually the author of the Bill of rights that that piece of legislation passed by legislation passed by the Parliament, which, again, doesn't have the same kind of that us the US rights as.

But again, it was a very heady experience meeting with all of these people. And, almost from the first day that I arrived, probably the first day that I arrived was I started meeting with people. I began to sense this really powerful, omnipresent emphasis on fairness. If you go to New Zealand trying to gain an appreciation for their political culture, it's like you can't miss it.

It's it's almost palpable. It's just so, so ever present. And in fact, a few years after I returned, in 2012, a fellow, historian by the name of David Hackett Fisher, some of you may, may recognize some of his works, but he published a book, comparing the US with New Zealand. The title of the book is Fairness and Freedom a history of two open societies, New Zealand and the United States.

And in his book, Fisher argues that that you can actually trace New Zealand's focus on fairness to their founders, people that left Europe for New Zealand when they're seeking a more fair, opportunity. And he and he makes a similar our good people who came to the US came here seeking freedom. And it's a fascinating book. And it's I mean, he's done a tremendous amount of work.

Just by asking cold call, contacting them via email, and just a delightful, experience to be involved in, and then to see a parliamentary system that functioned so well. If a problem arises, they deal with it. I found myself sort of casting about for a, some explanations. And I was particularly struck by that office of the Ombudsman, which I found myself thinking, it's almost like an institutionalized conscience.

For the nation, I don't it's almost like, saying that, they'll Nokia or they'll get Tokyo generally cricket sitting on your shoulder, whispering in his ear, trying to provoke your conscience. The, busman's office serves that role for New Zealand politics. But I found myself, And it's really one of those, I found myself thinking, here in the US, and and I, again, I try to find, in my head.

Couldn't help but want to start trying to come up with theories. I actually found myself thinking that maybe New Zealand democracy had an advantage on the US, due to the very lack of having a written constitution. That is when Parliament acts in New Zealand. The courts can't come along and say, no, you can't do affirmative action or no, you can't do this.

It violates our Bill of rights. I mean, it's one thing to have a progressive court, trying to promote minority rights, but when you have a court, which is becoming increasingly less progressive and quite willing to, overturn acts of, of the legislature, such as, oh, we're in the US. Well, I don't know, maybe the maybe the Supreme Court and Citizens United was protecting a minority rights of corporations.

And in so doing, frustrating democracy. So, so, yeah, I found myself literally questioning is it is the presence of the US Constitution a stumbling block for progressive political agendas? Obviously, I couldn't forget the role the court has played in the past in promoting, certain minority rights. But clearly, one of the challenges of the Dworkin thesis is the court protecting minority rights became very evident.

Which minority are they protected? And if you look at the history of American Supreme Court, rulings, the courts been relatively consistent in protecting the minority rights, property, government and, and corporations. So again, I find myself, wrestling with all of these questions. And eventually, after a number of years, I end up, writing this book, the title of my presentation today.

I'm not sure where I need to this so that you can see it. And maybe there's nowhere that I can, so you can see it, but it's title approaching the US Constitution, Sacred Covenant for placing for lawyers and judges. I got those words Sacred Covenant from in the Casey opinion and the Supreme Court, 1976 1992 Bradford versus Casey for the Supreme Court claim to uphold the essential holding of Roe v Wade.

would give it more, more power. And the Maori said, no, they were afraid that if they if if New Zealand created a written constitution, it would become news like the US Constitution is so often been used in a legalistic sort of way and become a plaything for lawyers and judges. I got permission from, one of my in New Zealand scholars, to borrow that phrase from him, which I found in one of his his pieces.

It cannot implement any of its rulings. It can't, it can't. It literally is totally dependent on others for implementing its rulings. And even though the US Constitution, even though the framers considered the idea of including the power of legislative and judicial review, that is the power for the court to actually look at acts of the legislature and rule on their constitutionality.

And Hamilton argues that the judiciary needed to be independent and they basically have like tenure that will take place, good behavior so that they would be willing and able to just provide the arduous duty his words, of challenging Congress and not having to fear that it could come back and haunt them. So in a sense, from Hamilton's perspective, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court is very similar to the role of the ombudsman's office in New Zealand.

And so I found by wishes granted, indeed, we do have something like the Ombudsman's office now. It's not quite as good. You have to hire a lawyer, but you like, you can get, someone to take up your cause. But in all reality, as Hamilton argued in Federalist 78, the only power the US Supreme Court has certainly had back then and currently has today, is the power of persuasion.

The Supreme Court can only its rulings, only has only half as much effectiveness as we're willing to give that. And you know, when you listen to the media talk about the court or you listen to members of Congress or various critics of the court talk about the court, it's almost as if they've forgotten that. It's almost as if they think that when the Supreme Court rules, that becomes the law of the land.

But that's just not true. If you look at the reality, the reason why, we are now entering a very fraught point, a period of time, with regard to, selecting to do justice, to sit on the Supreme Court. The reason, one reason why is because there still is this hope to overturn Roe v Wade.

But Roby Wade was decided back in 1973. Since then, the court has heard numerous cases where state governments have been unwilling to abide by the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade and passed legislation that violates that ruling. And so a new case ends up in front of the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court ends up issuing a new ruling, in 1992, the Casey case that I mentioned earlier, and in my mind in many ways really did overturn Roe v Wade.

It, held it up in the name that claims to have held it up and the essential holding of Rowe, but it really did dial back, a woman's right to reproductive, making reproductive decisions, at least during that first trimester and prior to prior to 1992, Roe v Wade basically demanded that a woman had virtually an absolute right to, no, be not being compared with during the first trimester 1992 Casey case.

And that and states have been and created this new standard called the undue burden. So states can put in regulations, regulating abortion so long as they're not unduly burdensome. And so states will try something and the court ends up having to decide, whether or not that is unduly burdensome. Most recently, so-called conservatives, I say so-called because it's not clear to me that it's conservative to lock a government bureaucrat interfering with with one's, private decisions with regard to, pregnancies.

But, the most recent case that really disappointed conservatives who thought they finally had made it with Justice Kavanaugh, again, a new case came before the court because states, we're pushing the limits. Supreme court, despite a Supreme Court's ruling that this case came before the court, was exactly like once the court had decided on just, a few years earlier.

And that was regard to the idea that doctors had to have admission rights in a in a hospital if they're going to provide abortion, practices. And, the court had ruled, no, that's unconstitutional. It's too burdensome. States ignored that ruling and came up with a similar, almost identical ruling or law, hoping that this time the court would uphold it.

And once again the court but voted against it. My point being. Hamilton's vision of the court, I mean, Hamilton hoped that the court would develop the kind of, political legitimacy that our court has today. It clearly didn't in his time. But if you think about the court, I mean, it it has developed a certain amount of legitimacy.

But its power lies only insofar as we think of it as legitimate and as I as I my phrase plaything for lawyers and judges and the title of my book implies when, when, when the court treats the Constitution as a plaything to be manipulated by lawyers and judges, that's when they lose credibility. Hamilton predicted this. And Federalist 78, he said if the court overstepped using a legalistic kind of approach to making sense of the Constitution, and uphold laws that clearly seem on just under the argument, well, the law is the law.

There's nothing we can do. It will lead to cynicism. And, a deep lack of respect for the court. And in my book, I look at examples like the Dred Scott case, where Chief Justice Roger tiny said, you know, I know this really seems bad. It's hard for us to imagine how our forefathers thought about the, the, the the black.

I can't remember the term of years, people from Africa, the slave race, but they simply view them as, as not ever being capable of ever having, citizen rights. And. So sorry, Mr. Scott. Nothing we can do about you are not a citizen, and we cannot help you. This is the kind of language that Justice Scalia like to use, is trying to use in 1986 when he said, you know, I don't have anything against gays.

I'm not sure I believe in, but he said, I don't. But, hey, there's no the words homosexual sodomy don't appear in the Constitution, so no one has the right to engage in that practice. That kind of legalistic thinking, is what hurts the court. Now, my next move, and that is I want to look at the Chief Justice Roberts and his court as, umpire approach.

Now, Roberts tried to claim a certain amount of humility when he went before the the US Senate Judiciary Committee, and he said to them, no one goes to a ball game to watch the umpire. The umpires job is to simply call balls and strikes in an objective sort of way. I don't know if Chief Justice Roberts has ever gone to a ball game, but anybody who's ever paid much attention, certainly players know that umpires have their own idea of what the strike zone is.

And if an umpire calls a ball a strike, there's nothing anyone can do about. If if the goal of our, the so-called conservatives is that is to dial back the political power of the court, the last thing that they want to champion is the idea that the court is like an umpire. Umpires have dictatorial powers. Umpires say what it is, and that's what it is.

And if you if I haven't convinced you yet, imagine this scenario. Somebody goes up to bat, swings away, hits the ball a home run, and the umpire says, throw that pitch again. I'm not I'm not going to pay any attention to that. That's what I mean. The Supreme Court has the ability to set its own agenda.

It gets them through the agenda setting business. It's very much engaged in. So anything but objective practices of an umpire. Umpires don't get to set their agenda. They've got to make the call. The ball hit their home run at it. It looks like it was over the fence or the foul of it, you know. So, they don't get to set their own agenda.

So it's just the umpire idea is a really bad idea. And if we do think them as umpires, when we empower them, dictatorial, dictatorial authority, and especially if they get to then should decide which balls to leave and look at that's even more dictatorial. So it's a bankrupt notion. It's not a good way to think about the court at all, at least.

It just, Justice Scalia was fond of saying, you know, citizens are not to have any faith in us if they if they think that we're letting our our personal values come into play here, but have done the Scalia think the citizens are, why does he think he was put on the Supreme Court? Why is this great controversy becoming a controversy?

We know that people have put on the court precisely because of their personal values. So I argue in my text that the last that that what we really need are justices who will openly embrace the difficult challenge of wrestling with our most ethical, challenging questions as our conscience might. Or the court will say, you know, I smell a rat.

There's something wrong with this piece of legislation that feels wrong. Hamilton suggested the justices just even look at the intentions of legislatures and call them out when their intentions are are nefarious. This well, this doesn't destroy faith in the court when the court does it. Especially when we understand that the best thing the court can do is to be our conscience.

You look at Brown, the Board of Education, the case I mentioned earlier, you can you cannot by any legalistic thinking. In that case, the primary logic that Chief Justice Warren uses is that allowing schools to remain segregated will do very terrible harm to the hearts and minds of the nation's children. That's not you can't find those words in the Constitution.

So my argument is the court needs to talk to us in a again in a way that we can understand, in a way that appeals to our better sense of justice. The ideal of government of law, not of man, becomes a government of law. Men and increasingly women. When the court acts as our legal guardian, law men and women who understand this very complex bunch of, past cases, etc. that boggle the human mind, Chief Justice Marshall argued in McCulloch versus Maryland.

We've got to remember it's a constitution we're dealing with. It's not a legal document. The Constitution was not written by any state legislative body. It's bigger than that. It's not the supreme statute of the land. It's the Supreme law law understood in a very broad, way. Government of law, not of law. Men, lawyers, judges, the, the so that the,

But, obviously the challenge is how do we start doing that? And again, in my mind, it's, I think I teach constitutional law, so I do my best to try to help my students. We're going to practice law, or going off into politics to understand how, this particular, vision of Hamilton's. But, I'm just one long road professor calling you Idaho.

And, I think my vision is is is the correct one again, not mine so much as it's Hamilton's. And I think I'll probably, call it ahead right there and go ahead and start taking your questions.

Doug Exton: Thank you for all the information. That was definitely, a timely presentation. And I will say I'm very jealous of your trip to New Zealand. I bet it was amazing. So to open up, do you think the US will ever be able to transition into a model that New Zealand has regarding the Supreme Court being more of like that conscience on the shoulder rather than, you know, this is the definitive answer?

Dr. Kerry Hunter: Well, if it will really happen only to the extent that justices embrace that role again, they have Brown the Board of Education as an example, where they have, the Casey case, was an attempt by three justices who wrote that plurality opinion try to make some nod towards, pro-life folk and pro-choice folk in a way.

And kind of bridge that, and it didn't succeed, obviously. But the court the court does has in the past and I'm guessing in the future will have those kinds of rulings, but only if we can kill that silly notion that the role of the court is to be like our current chief claims, which is, a umpire calling balls and strikes.

And I will say that Chief Justice Roberts understands the importance of preserving the legitimacy of the court. In fact, if you look at the last 3 or 4 years, a Gallup poll, shows that, support for the court has been increasing slowly but increasing, compared. I mean, over the years it's remained within a, you know, usually above 50% approval rating, so much better than our other national institutions.

But, Roberts, has disappointed a lot of conservatives. Roberts actually spoke and spoke out against Donald Trump, who would like to view judges as either or justices, either Democrats and Republicans. And Roberts said, no, we're not. Roberts is trying his best to be neutral, but he's also been willing to the, us go against what the conservatives saw when they put him on the court and in order to show his commitment to neutrality.

But in the end, I'm convinced that that neutrality is not enough, because we all see through. We know there's all this politics going on, and I and I think it would be healthier for our society if our justices, acknowledge that there is something they can do about what they can do. They can appeal to our higher, our higher, values, our sense of justice and say a loss is unconstitutional for those reasons.

The only way it will happen is if the if with inside lawyers and judges begin to recognize the need for that. But I, I'm not holding my breath. Occasionally it'll happen.

Doug Exton: And then earlier, when you're talking about New Zealand, you mentioned how they do a really good job with minority rights. And the New Zealand tends to be more of a homogenous country with just the two groups typically at least on the forefront, the Maori and then the. Oh, Caucasians. So do you think that makes it easier for them, since they're really dealing with one major minority rather than in the US, where we have a large prominence of multiple different groups?

Dr. Kerry Hunter: You know, it's fascinating. I always get that question. This really demonstrates, our ignorance over here with regard to New Zealand, culture, that I don't remember the precise day, but when I was there, there that the way the heard demographics were looking, the trends were looking by the year 2025 or maybe a little later, there was being no majority.

You know, every now and then we get these new reality television series. And when I was in New Zealand, the one that really got my, attention was one called Fair Go. That is, everyone deserves a fair go. That's the language they use in New Zealand. And so they had a reality television program called Fair Go.

And people get to bring their complaints. And it's not a it's just they're just more interested in being fair. And again, since they don't have a, a constitution that can be interpreted in this legalistic fashion, that helps them to do that. They were a step they would be. I just they couldn't believe what we're doing right now.

We actually got 90 days before an election in New Zealand. You can do no, no major legislation. We could go around putting people on the court. I mean, they recognize what is wrong now. There's no law says you can't. But there's a custom. They call it a constitutional convention, which I find fascinating. They have a convention that says, no, that's wrong.

So that boggles their mind. I mean, we call ourselves a democracy. And so it's the kind of things we do in the name of, well, that's what the Constitution says. That's what Mitt Romney said just today. The Constitution says job to the president elect, the next president. That's what all the other Republicans say. Who were they earlier four years ago?

That's too bad. That's that's not the job of the president. Should be the people get the election before you get someone else on the court. That kind of crap doesn't happen in New Zealand because they they just have this culture that is not tied to the words of a constitution. Go ahead. Next question.

Doug Exton: One definition of legalistic is adhering sometimes excessively to the black and white letter of written law, similar to what you just said, is in this inherent in the concept rule of law versus rule of benign potentates.

Dr. Kerry Hunter: It doesn't have to be, it depends on how you understand the word law. Law can be, again, I want to differentiate between law and statute, and I want and I and I look to, Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch versus Maryland, where he does the same now, the same Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison, which is the case the first time that the Supreme Court overturned an act of Congress because the Supreme Court was sensitive, that, initially, you know, it didn't have that already written constitution.

In that case, he does talk about the cost as like a legal document. Marshall was willing to, use the Constitution. However, he felt he needed to use it in order to accomplish his vision. But in McCulloch versus Maryland, he emphasizes this. No, this is a constitution, not a statute. And if you get studying legal, the idea is a law.

There's natural law that this idea of law is much broader than a map, the idea of a narrow, legalistic way of thinking, that can be, the way you approach it in a legalistic way. And, and so doing turn, turn everything into a plaything for lawyers and judges with all manner of fine print that no one can understand, but a lawyer and a lawyer in place that one way or the other.

That's a very narrow way of thinking about the rule of law. And it's not one that I think we should embrace enormously at grace when we allow that to be our what rules us. And we really are big being governed by lawyers and judges, not the law.

Doug Exton: And then the American Bar Association Model Code for Judicial Conduct, which has been adopted by Idaho for their state judges, provides that judges and judicial candidates shall not, in connection with cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance. Adjudicator of duties of Judicial Office.

Do you agree with that provision?

Dr. Kerry Hunter: Well, as a as a professor of political philosophy, the the word impartial I find completely, problematic again, is that idea of a, an umpire attempting to be impartial. We humans are far from capable of being absolutely impartial. It's a it's a it's a good. It's a particularly good standard to try to uphold. We also have the Lady Justice as one of our ideals, rightly Lady Justice, which is blindfolded.

The idea being that justice is impartial. That is, justice should not judge you based on your sex or your gender, your your, sexual orientation or your the color of your skin. And so impartiality in that way, I think is a tremendously wonderful ideal. And, and indeed, I think judges, when looking at a judicial proceeding, should behave that way.

But notice and, I talk about this a fair amount in my book as well. The US also has another ideal. And that is, jury of one's peers. Now that I ideal is actually totally opposite of impartiality, the jury of one's peers ideal is saying, well, we what we think that peers have a kind of partiality that will allow them to discover capital J justice better than, the legal.

Well, that was that might be written by legislation. So a jury of one's peers and anybody who knows how juries operate, I understand it. You get behind closed doors, the juries and kind of do anything they want. And the jury of one's peers, ideally, is intended for that. If the law and in fact, the initially there were those who believed that it would be the jury trial that would protect against bad legislation, unjust legislation, the law seems to be treating people unjustly that can be dealt with in the jury of one's peers.

So, yeah, in some ways it's the job of the government. I'm looking over at trial to be as impossible, as impartial as possible, using the lady justice theory or approach. But the jury, actually, by ideal, is meant to be more partial and then attempt to discover true justice for that situation, if that makes sense. So I understand what I'm saying is okay.

And I also we should emphasize why the Supreme Court is acting as a purely in its appellate role that is, looking to see if the process to be law was following the procedures. That's one thing. But when you're engaged in legislating judicial review, that is questioning the, constitutionality of legislation, they don't have a legal authority to do that.

So they would be they would they would serve us better, in my mind, if they acted like the idea of a jury of one's peers, try. And then if you're going to speak out against, legislate legislation, speak out against it based on its, its consistency with justice as opposed to whether or not the words homosexual sodomy show up in that document.

A longer answer than your expected but necessary.

Doug Exton: And since New Zealand doesn't have a constitution and that seems to working really well for them, do you think there is a possibility of the US ever transitioning into not having a constitution or just completely redoing our constitution? Or do you think that's like a to too far gone on?

Dr. Kerry Hunter: I don't that was kind of what was hanging me up. You know, when I first got back to New Zealand, I'm trying to figure out what to do with all this information. And it's the title approaching the US Constitution. Having a constitution is not our problem. Our Constitution can serve as a very, forward looking idealistic. I mean, the idea, everyone, you know, everyone having equal protection under the law is important.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's how we approach it. So, yeah. Is it possible that someday we'll have some other constitutional convention and change? Change it? I suppose it's possible. I don't think it's probable. It's just so difficult. But that's another way of sort of addressing that again, would be we have certain justices on the court and certain what we're all professors.

We're really into this notion called originalism, and they want us to interpret the document precisely as it was intended by those who originally wrote it. That, too, is a false notion. One, there was not a single original view. People who signed on to it signed on to it for various reasons. Secondly, we we don't we don't know, exactly how each word meant to each person who signed on to it.

There. There's split as New Zealanders ask, why would you allow yourself to be governed by a previous generation? Why would we think of them being smarter than we are? So if you approach the Constitution in the way that one of my favorites, Justice Brennan, did as a living document meant to help us deal with our current, problems in a way that is fair and just for all.

As much as possible, the current constitution can work fine. There's no need necessarily to amend it. As if we would just approach it, more as a sacred covenant and less as a plaything for lawyers and judges.

Doug Exton: And then this might be our last question for the night, since we are running a little short on time, but someone is wondering, what might need to change reduce a Supreme Court guide the principles of persuasion that would enable it to act as our legal guardian in a way that is guided primarily by how our moves. And then would that be a problem for Congress for deciding who gets to point to the court, or is that a problem for voters?

Dr. Kerry Hunter: So if voters are pretty much in over their heads on these sorts of things, we don't know. I mean, the voter, the average voter doesn't pay that much attention to the court. There's a there's a institution called the Federalist Society where all judges and conservatives like anymore pretty much have to be a member. And they tend to sign on to things like Roberts umpire approach and that legalistic notion that, they promote things like trying to come up with it at an absolute, so Dictionary of Terms and Governance, and, and I guess what I'm saying is what we probably need is a similar sort of society that would have to

be embraced by law. Professors at law schools, our most prestigious ones, our Yale, etc., a similar society that that is committed to Hamilton's vision. And, those sorts of organizations can really impact things now, I think. Is it for for people on the Supreme Court now, the conservative justices all or part of that society? So there are ways, are I'm not going to be able to do it here in Caldwell, Idaho, at the College of Idaho.

Maybe some of my students who go off to prestigious law schools will be able to begin having these kinds of influences. You never know. I mean, 3 or 4 people who are committed to a particular vision in the right place can begin hammering away at this sort of thing and make a change. For the for the longest time, this is my 33rd year at the College of Idaho.

For the longest time, I tried not to profess my my job. I see my job as one of challenging students, engaging them in a dialectic where they say, make some claim. And I challenge that claim when we interact with each other, they come up with a synthesis. And I we challenge that. My job has been the question. But after I came back to New Zealand and wrote this book, I began professing for the first time in my history and my career.

Because I do believe that Hamilton's vision would be so much healthier for the country to embrace. And so, yeah, I deal with students who do go off to some of our best law schools in the country regularly. And, you know, I got this question from you just now. I haven't thought about maybe we need to start creating this new society.

And, yeah. So right now just started Georgetown Law. Maybe I'll send them an email at tonight's meeting.

Doug Exton: Well, I'm glad that we got we were able to get you thinking. Okay. And unfortunately, we are out of time. So I wanted to say thank you for attending tonight, everyone. And thank you, doctor Hunter, for joining us.

Dr. Kerry Hunter: So thank and thank you. And if there's anyone that would like to engage me further on any of this, feel free, to, get my email address and, and, send me an e-mail. We can chat more or even have a, have a zoom sort of thing, if you'd like. Thank you.

Doug Exton: Good night. Everyone.