As a former home secretary, I have access to and knowledge of the workings of the system in a way that individuals unfamiliar with the courts can never hope to have.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
But, I know enough people in that court, through the years, to know one thing: There's always somebody who surprises you, who rises above what they thought they appointed him for, and stays with the separation of powers, and with the right of the law to decide.
As I understand, the role of the federal judiciary, the role of our court system, is to provide justice.
I try to do two moot courts for every Supreme Court case (and one to two for courts of appeals), and to ensure I am being mooted by people who know the Supreme Court well and are coming to the case fresh.
It is indeed an odd business that it has taken this Court nearly two centuries to 'discover' a constitutional mandate to have counsel at a preliminary hearing.
People demand a lot of the justice system and they demand things that it can't deliver.
I spent my time trying to understand grand jury procedure - a topic about which I never before had the slightest interest.
Everything needs to be public. The legitimacy of the courts comes from the fact that they reason openly, on the record, based on facts.
They know, the courts know, the people know that they have no way of changing the results as it affects them.
As a former attorney general. I have the greatest respect for the criminal justice system. But it is not good at intelligence gathering.
You have a good judicial system in the U.S., as you have learned from the Nixon-Watergate period.