 Hello, I'm Javier Hernandez reporting from Washington. Attacks on judicial independence come from all sides of the political spectrum. Three such attacks and their lasting effects on the judiciary were explored in Washington by a panel of academic, political and judiciary experts. It was a full house in the Federal Judicial Center Auditorium for the Supreme Court Fellow's panel discussion, Judicial Independence, Drawing Lessons from History. The discussion focused on three cases that challenged judicial independence. The first case was the 1804 impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, who was accused of political bias. If you look at the debates of Congress at the time, the proponents of impeachment really did view it as a mechanism not of high crimes and misdemeanors, but just of removal and moving forward with judges that were more in step with the new administration. And we are fortunate that that was really stopped at the inception. The Senate acquitted Chase, which was a victory for judicial independence, but it would not be the last time a political party attempted to pressure the court or its judges. Over a hundred years later, Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought to influence the Supreme Court, but instead of removing justices, he wanted to add more. FDR's court packing plan of 1937 also failed. The goal, of course, is not necessarily to make Congress and the president happy, although their unhappiness may function as a prudential constraint at times. And what's one of the interesting things about at least the court packing story is the role of public opinion, overwhelming democratic landslide, but yet public opinion was, hey, we want an independent court, even if it's wrong sometimes. Just after the Civil War, newspaper publisher William McCartle was arrested by the military for inciting insurrection. McCartle sought habeas corpus release under a provision of reconstruction legislation. Chief Justice Sam and Chase decided to hear the case in two parts. The first was to determine if the court had jurisdiction. Some scholars believe this was done to give Congress time to draft new legislation. In a sense, he tipped off the Congress to the fact that the court thought it had jurisdiction and would be in a position to judge the constitutionality of the reconstruction acts of Congress. And that's, of course, what the radical Republicans of the Congress did not want. And that's what led them to repeal the habeas statute. So when McCartle's case came before the court a second time, the court no longer had jurisdiction. This prevented a direct confrontation with Congress over the reconstruction acts. These three cases illustrate the continuing battles between our three branches of government. According to the panel, that internal conflict is also the strength of our system. The beauty of our system is grounded in many things, but one of the most important is the dynamic conflict and confrontation between the three departments of government. And that has served us well. It has redefined the role of the president, it has redefined the role of the Congress and of the court. I know that will continue to. A new threat to the judiciary has emerged. Over the last 20 years, inflation and denials of cost of living adjustments have eroded the salaries of federal judges. The judiciary is facing problems, attracting the best and the brightest to the bench. And it's not just the shrinking pool, it's retention. Because I think the stat, I think in the last five years, we've had more judges leave than ever in the history of the federal judiciary. In addition to the chief justice being very vocal about this, many of the justices have been very supportive. And Steve Breyer was very active with the Volcker Commission. We're looking at something comparable to my colleague here on the right, law professor type salaries. We'd be satisfied with that. Reporting from Washington, I'm Javier Hernandez.