 I'm Jay Fidel. This is State Tech Hawaii and we're joining not one but two guests while one contributor Russell Liu and Paul Anderson, Judge Paul Anderson, both in Minnesota. Well actually Russell is here in Hawaii and Judge Anderson is in Minnesota because he's a retired judge in Minnesota for the Minnesota Supreme Court. How do you like that? Russell! I'm going to walk in just a minute here is that you know the title for my position is Justice but the easy way to refer to me is Judge because I tell people Justice is more of a concept. It doesn't roll easily off the tongue as the title so go ahead and say refer to me as Judge. Russell will say Justice I'm sure. Well we'll see in a moment Russell what would you say and can you introduce the judge or can you introduce the subject of our discussion today? Because I'm the youngest guy Jay I'm going to call Paul Justice Anderson out of respect but but I good morning to our audience in Hawaii good morning to or good afternoon to our audience out in the Midwest and wherever you may be. Today we have a really special opportunity to have Justice Paul Anderson or Judge Anderson to share and let us about his experiences teaching American jurisprudence around the world. He's been esteemed Supreme Court Justice for the Supreme Court of Minnesota for over two decades and for the past few years he's been invited by many prestigious law schools and institutions around the world. He's lectured and taught in Russia, China, Philippines and many other places which he can share about lecturing. Forget one of my big failures, Libya. Oh, Libya too. So he's been everywhere and so I think Jay will have a lot of questions too because it's a fascinating experience. What's it like to lecture American jurisprudence to law students and to young lawyers abroad and why is it important and relevant in today's global context? Wow. Thanks for that discussion Russell. So Judge Paul I want to ask you one question. You served 20 years on the bench as a Supreme Court Justice in Minnesota and then you spent another well several years almost 10 years I guess running around the world and trying to explain American jurisprudence to people everywhere really. Which was a better time in your life? Ah a Sophie's Choice. As you remember that movie. I really enjoyed my time on the court and I gotta be frank with you I was a better judge or justice than I was a lawyer. It just really fit into my talents and my skills and what I wanted to do. We have mandatory retirement Minnesota 870 could be 872. I don't disagree with that concept. Maybe it should have been 72. But what I've done afterwards has also been fulfilling. I do still do a lot of mentoring as students. I'm doing some writing. I was very involved in the election in Minnesota of 1990. I have about 30 TV shows that I commented on things over the two decades. I'm putting that in the former book. So I'm keeping busy. Life is good. There's a time and place for everything and there was a time for me to move on and I was comfortable with that. But I really loved my time on the court. Well you said you were a better judge than you were a lawyer. What was your what do I call it your judicial philosophy to make that contribution? Well one thing is that I'm a generalist okay. I started out in the practice of law as a generalist and as the law practice in the United States has evolved you got to be specialist. But the ultimate generalists in the area of the law of these days are the Supreme Court. We got everything. Criminal law, civil law all across the spectrum. And I love the challenge of that. I used to say that on the court there were periods of time when I was probably one of the world's top experts on a particular topic because it was involved in the case and I'd move on and I'd lose that. But also and it ties into what we're doing today. It gave me a platform to talk about the law, talk about the Constitution and educate people about how the system works and how it should work. So I've been out and about Minnesota nationally, internationally trying to explain how the law works and that really has fit into who I am. Well Minnesota we've been reading a lot about Minnesota in the past year or two and I wonder if you could also answer this question. How has Minnesota changed? I mean from a legal point of view welcome to sociological point of view since you were on the bench. It's different now isn't it? It certainly seems different to the fellow who just follows national events. Yes it has. Now I will be, it's not patting ourselves on the back, but Minnesota is one of the best run states in the country. We have very little corruption here. The government works well, many dedicated people. But some of that has eroded over the last couple of decades. People have been less kind to each other. They have been less willing to honor the principles of the rule of law. And so you know democracy is an evolving concept and institution and we're evolving in Minnesota and I've never been quite so displeased with the attitudes of some of my fellow Minnesota citizens as I am now. They're too willing to abandon some of our basic principles in our institutions. I'm working on trying to restore that. Good. I believe that that's the duty of every lawyer and every judge. To Tocqueville, he says that the new aristocracy in America is not the wealthy or whatever. You can find it at the judge's bench and the lawyer's bar. You're absolutely right about that. But what about Shakespeare, Judge? Shakespeare said let's kill all the lawyers personally. Yeah, but you've got to read the whole quote. People who don't like lawyers just take that quote that one part out. If you read the whole thing, he's quite complimentary about the role of lawyers in society. Okay. So here you are trying to show American showcase American justice jurisprudence to the world. But you know there are those who would say to you now today, Judge, there's nothing much American jurisprudence can offer because it's falling apart. And there are some cases that have been decided predictably by judges who predictably ruled the wrong way. And we need to take our judges to account also. And therefore, our jurisprudence to account. Do you tell them this when you lecture in far off lands? I do. Now you're going to get me into something. I mean, when I talk about American law and jurisprudence, I focus on the rule of law, human rights, and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And now there are different documents. I tell people to look at the Declaration of Independence for philosophy and inspiration. That was written by basically five people, main author being Thomas Jefferson. I also tell people, I mean, I love the Constitution, okay? But I'm very candid that it is a defective document. You know what they say, if you like sausage and the law, you shouldn't watch either being made. Well, they made a lot of sausage in Philadelphia when they put our Constitution together and has a lot of defects. It recognized slavery. It had in it many ways in which you can perpetuate and support legal discrimination. But the thing about the Constitution that's most important is it is, is for its ideals and the rule of law and humanity. And when I talk about our Constitution, I tell people, I don't agree with Scalia who said it's an original document. Traditionist mother, no, it is a living document. It is the evolving document. And it gets interpreted by human beings. I particularly do not like the human beings, some of the human beings on our Supreme Court right now because I don't think they could do a good job. They do not, in my mind, reflect many of the ideals, the common humanity and some of the principles of rule of law in the Constitution. But then Robert's not going to let it go too far off the cliff. And we'll come back from it. But the important thing is, is that the Constitution has the ideal of the rule of law and common humanity. And so, and it's flexible enough so we can adjust to the times and evolve. Do you want me to give any example of how justices can go really wrong? Absolutely. Justice Scalia, not one of my favorite justices. He's a little bit arrogant to my mind. He's a bit of a close mind. But he espoused this whole idea of traditionalism and originalism. And is that he said that when he rendered his opinions, that's what he's doing. He is the purest of judges when looking at the Constitution because he's looking at original needs. There's a word I want to use here, but I won't use it because we're on, but he's a way wrong because what Scalia's view is, is that you're interpreting the words in the Constitution. He's saying he's originalist. He's seeing them the way he sees them. They're seeing him in the context of his experience, a very conservative Catholic, a very conservative political point of view. No, I'm not sure that if he were to go back and visit with the founders, they would say, well, Justice Scalia, you didn't get it quite right. And a good example would be the Heller case. We have a public health crisis in the United States with respect to guns, and it's really getting out of control when you say some things are out of control. And I mean, all these guns are a big factor, not only the healthy nature of our citizens, their fear, but it also has an effect on policing. When these police officers show up, they're likely to find a gun. Well, Scalia wrote an opinion that basically said the Constitution guarantees everybody the right to have a gun. I mean, he would give everybody a AK-47 and a Howitzer, whatever, guaranteed that in the Constitution. No, the Constitution doesn't say that. I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment. Every American citizen has the right to have a muzzle loading rifle and a flintlock pistol, as long as they guarantee that they will be part of a militia and available to put down a slave rebellion. If you want to be an originalist, that's it. Lovely, lovely. Well, I always wondered why Ruth Bader Ginsburg was so friendly with Scalia. And I felt at least part of me felt that she was friendly with him because she wanted to change his views about things. Do you have a thought about that? It's basically a mutual love for opera. There you go. You're absolutely right. There's some truth to that. Because when I was serving on a judge, and particularly as the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, there were multiple levels I dealt with my colleagues. One was administrative. One was on judicial issues we decided. And one was on a personal thing. And I always tried to find something of a personal nature to keep a relation going because you're right. She wanted to influence Scalia as much as she could. He's not very subject to influence. But she wanted to keep that rapport going to make the court work well. So they had a mutual love. That's where they interacted on a personal level, their mutual love for opera. What do you think of that case two weeks ago over the Arizona voter suppression statute? That was of great concern to a lot of people. And that was, of course, the Republican majority on the court. I hate to say that. That's what it was. Well, it is. There was 6-3. And key was Roberts. Roberts does not like cases that deal with voting rights. And he does not like cases that deal with the reapportionment of districts. He will, he's just, that's his background. I haven't sorted out why it's so. But he thinks that states can do whatever they want to suppress the vote. Now, maybe he's right because originally the Constitution didn't allow women to vote, didn't allow non-property owners to vote. So maybe he's being an originalist saying as you've got the right to restrict as many people as you can from voting. He's wrong on that. I mean, I'm being a little facetious here. But they're just out of touch. Because one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy is the people are sovereign. And they get to express their sovereignty by voting. They do it by speaking, which is being able to show up, which is being restricted, and then being heard, which is another thing that they're trying to do is to, even if you show up and vote, some of the Republicans are trying to restrict how the votes get counted. That is wrong. That is contrary to the basic ideals of our Constitution. But unfortunately, Roberts and the rest of them don't see it that way. That is unfortunate because it goes the wrong direction right now, especially right now, where we're in a voting crisis, if you will. I'm going to say here is that I have some expertise on this area. That's why I was in Tunisia and Libya and in the Philippines, to talk about the right to vote. How you guarantee the right to show up and speak, and you guarantee the right to be heard. Stalin said he didn't care who voted as long as he got to count. So let's go to China for a minute. I want to cover as many countries as we have time. But in China, you're going to be just as straightforward about that, in discussing jurisprudence in China as you are here on the show. What do you say to somebody in China who is telling you that seems inconsistent? Because you have all these high ideals, presumably embedded in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and so forth. And yet the country doesn't follow them. At the end of the day, what the Supreme Court rules, what the president does, that is what the country is doing to its citizens, to its ideals. And so in China, when they criticize American jurisprudence, what do you say? Can you get away with saying, well, it's imperfect. That's what it is. Or do you have another answer? Well, one of the things I do is I tell them what my mother told me. You got to be careful when you point a finger at somebody because in your hand there are three fingers pointing right back at you. And so when China is speaking about criticism of the United States, you have to be careful and measured in that criticism because if you do, there are three fingers in that hand pointing back at you. I mean, China is an autocratic country ruled by the Communist Party, the inner circle, and more and more powers being consolidated in President Xi. But I go back to what I said before. We are not perfect, but the important thing about our system is we have the ability to correct ourselves, to evolve. And in the United States, we have revolutions and we have a mechanism in the law and the Constitution that institutionalizes revolution. That was our elections every two years. And I can point out, I mean, when Trump was elected in 2016, there was a revolution. When Obama beat Bush in 2008, there was a revolution at the voters. In 2006, when the Democrats took over Congress, there was a revolution. So we have the ability, under our form of government, to revolt and change things. Now, the important thing is here is that we've got to get the sovereign entity here to do the right thing. That's the voter. And there are some things going on in society that make that very difficult now. The internet has made it difficult. The role of big money, the Supreme Court has just again said, you know, you don't have to disclose who the big money donors are and do it. And see, and our Supreme Court, I think, has made a mistake. It equates money with free speech. Now, money is not free speech. But my hope is, you know, democracy is kind of like the pendulum on a grandfather's clock. You know, there is an appropriate arc in which that pendulum go back and forth. You know, sometimes it's over here. I agree with it a lot. Sometimes it's over here. I don't agree. But as long as the pendulum is within that proper arc, we're going to be okay. It's when it goes outside of that arc. And I think it went outside of the arc with Trump. And we're going to have to bring that pendulum back into its proper level of swing. Oh, wow. Very important thoughts. Are you sure that you don't want to be on the Supreme Court? Maybe a seat coming open, you know what I mean? No, I'm too old. You must be reacting to some of this, and I would like your views about what the judge is saying and how it affects America, how it affects jurisprudence in America, and how it affects jurisprudence, for example, one example in China. Well, Jay, I'm listening to all this weighty discussion. Maybe it's beyond my pay grade, but however, let me take a stab at it. You know, there's a saying by Kofi Annan said, good, healthy, democratic societies are built on three billers. Peace of stability, economic development, and respect for real law and human rights. The first thing, peace of stability, that's why I guess Biden is trying to get out, bring the troops back home. You need peace of stability. America has been in war. And to bring some of that focus back to the United States to deal with some of our internal problems and instability. That's correct. And economic development, you know, putting that money that goes out into our militaries around the world, bring them back, put infrastructure development. We need high-speed trains to connect Boston, New York, to Topeka, Kansas, and out to the Rockies. And we need all of that because, you know, this is where America has neglected itself. You know, part of being a democratic society is you've got to share the economic development across the country. And one of the things is a good thing about China that I've been there over 50 or 20 years is that they got the high-speed rail. So the high-speed train stops at every small little city. And people in the small cities can go on the internet. They can sell their things. And they're taken from small cities to the big cities to bigger markets. So we need to tie this up. So that's part of this whole thing of this, what we're discussing, a democratic society. And the third is the killer. Did you read Biden's bill on infrastructure? I'm going through that. We absolutely need infrastructure, something we've ignored terribly. We've ignored that, Paul. And that's part of what I see taking back from China to the U.S., where they've got it down. They've got the part of being economic development. They've got peace and stability. They don't go to wars, except they're getting a little bit edgy now. And economic development also means that's why Biden is trying to get the internet to a lot of the rural communities in America. And that's so important. We can't neglect people. Another important factor here. I mean, the wealth needs to be spread around. And the Republicans are promoting policies that concentrate wealth in a few, an oligarchy. And that way you have fewer and fewer people that feel invested in their former government. And so that's a very dangerous development. China has a bit of a better road because they're on the way up. They're bringing so many people out of poverty. It's people are saying, gee, it sure looks good to me because I'm better off than I was. And there are many people, this is the term thing people are saying, well, I'm not as well off as I should be or what my parents were. And that's one of the tensions and problems that we're dealing with here. And that's correct, Justice Sanderson. And it's like I'm saying is, economic development also means that infrastructure means everybody having internet. It means that everyone has access to a smartphone, affordable phone plans. When you're paying 100 bucks a month for a phone plan, you're locked in a contract for several years. You're not going to afford it. And the law, it's called a contract of adhesion. Contract of adhesion. You have no choice but to sign it if you want the service. That's correct. And then getting back to Jay, like Justice Sanderson said, and I believe that there's 10% of America that owns 80% of the assets and wealth in this country. And that's shocking. And this is the same, they're not redistributing their wealth. So that's why you have a lot of disgruntled Americans. And the third thing, what Justice Sanderson is working on is the rule law. By the way, Biden wants to redistribute it. And one of the ways we redistribute is through taxes. Through taxes, yes. And so, I mean, when he says he wants to impose taxes on the wealthy, it's very much a political philosophy that we need to redistribute the wealth in this country if it's going to be sound and secure in the future. Yes, that's correct. So that's a second pillar, economic development. The third pillar is the respect for rule law and human rights. And I think that what we've seen in the last four years through the Trump presidency, the January 6th insurrection, shows me that there are some chinks in this respect for rule law. Okay. And again, all of this means that in America, our Democrats say it's like on the pendulum, Paul, what you've talked about. The pendulum is swinging. And as we swing, we're trying to make the corrections. But it also looks back to the professor's original question of me. How have things changed? And you put your finger on one of the ways it's changed. There is a diminished respect for the rule of law and the institutions that support that concept. And so here you are, Judge. And I'm picking Libya because you said Libya was problematic for you. And you're addressing a bunch of lawyers or judges or ordinary citizens in Libya. Maybe political ruler is political officials. And you're telling them about American jurisprudence and your view of it. And you're a terrific ambassador. I'd love to be with you when you make these trips and enjoy the moment of contact. And I see the moment of contact as something like the Sistine Chapel. You know that painting? Oh yeah, a picture of the fingers coming together. Fingers coming together. So here you are, Paul Anderson connecting with people ideally in Libya and various other countries. And you are telling them from your heart what the United States stands for, what law in the United States stands for. How much influence do you have on them? Are you connecting like in the Sistine Chapel? Or is it just going over their heads or around their backs? Well for the most part I think I'm connecting. And I think one of the reasons being they they appreciate my candor and honesty when I talk about American system and jurisprudence. I said I'm going to describe to you the ways that we do things in the United States. It's a system of government that has evolved over two centuries. But what I want to make sure that you understand is you do not want to adopt what we're doing, lock, stock, and barrel. What your job here today is to listen to me and figure out what parts of what I say will work for you. Because and I say that democracy comes in many shapes and forms. So our form of democracy is not an end all and deal. But I say that a respect for human rights and equality and the rule law is absolutely fundamental to any democracy. So take a look at what I say. Try and digest what we are doing in the United States. And then pick and choose what works for you. You have a different structure. You have a tribal background. You have a religious background. I remember sitting in Tunisia and we were going over their constitution. And the first line is that we are an Islamic republic. And what does that mean? Does that mean that you're going to use only Islamic law? Well, Tunisia didn't interpret it that way. But you need to pick and choose and see what I mean. But they needed to have that in there if they were going to get acceptance of the constitution. But then some people may want to think to others that meant Tunisia has done relatively speaking a decent job coming out of April-Spring. Not perfect, but okay. What went wrong in Libya? Well, I met with Ambassador Stevens. He was a wonderful person. And he saved over tens of thousands of lives. But well, gosh, there's so many things. When Qaddafi was defeated, he had many arms and he had mercenaries, many of them from sub-Saharan Africa. So much of his arms went south. That's why we had this problem in Nigeria. They got so much arms out of Libya. But then there was a failure to understand and appreciate the tribal nature of Libyan society. You have a tribal, multiple tribe, but you have the area of Benghazi. And then you have Tripoli. And then you have sub-Saharan. And very different agendas, different approaches. And laid over the top of that was that you have the Islamic fundamentalists who come in and want to take over various aspects of it for their own particular purposes. And it just was kind of beyond the understanding of the people who are trying to get a control of it. And then, by the way, then you have Russia. As Russia told the United States, you get involved in these things. Don't do any regime change. Well, Qaddafi was cornered in a pole in some place and there was regime change. And so Russia didn't like it. And so they started missing in there. It's a complicated world. And that's hard to connect the dots. But one thing that seems clear right now is despite the beacon of, or maybe the previous beacon, the former beacon of open charity, of immigration openness and the like that the United States has represented, and still does represent in many places the varying degrees, we have a bunch of countries that are sliding back into a state of nature to become failed states. I think the most recent example of that is Haiti. There was an article in The New York Times by some Haitian person who was describing life in Haiti right now. And it's a failed state right now. There are many in Africa. We know that. Syria. Yes, you saw 60 minutes last night. It was horrible, horrible in Syria. And so the question I put to you is, how can you remain optimistic? How can you remain a purveyor of American idealism? Because that's what it is. When so many places in the world are degenerating and being fragmented and and becoming failed states. Simple answer. I have no choice but to be optimistic and hopeful. John Reid talked about uncertainty and the uncertainty of the future. But that uncertainty breeds hopefulness because that means that we have control over the future. I mean, the headlights of our car only see so far down the road. But there's a lot of road in front of that. It's uncertain, but I'm hopeful. And so that's why I do what I do. Try to spread the word of democracy, rule of law, and hope that it will gather force in various places. And it has in some. I mean, it's a bad time now. And I mean, and it's hard. Oh, it's so hard to stay optimistic and hopeful. But as I said earlier, I have no choice. That's the way I have to be. Russell, what a fabulous guest you brought to us today. A man who was not only accomplished, but honest and visionary. I'm so happy to spend a few moments together with you guys. Russell, can you close and give us your reactions and your thoughts going forward on this discussion? A summary, if you will. I think what I've got from our conversation today really is a couple of two things. One is evolving. We have to understand things are evolving. The American democratic institution is evolving. Lots of things are going to be happening. And there's a lot of things that may make through the monkey's wrench. And we get very depressed. But as Justice Anderson, it says, Judge Anderson said, there's hope. We have to have hope. There's no choice. And if we focus on that beam of light, that hope will make it through the darkness and we'll find a way to this road. And it's just a matter of time. So can I add one final thought? Sure. Please. Democracies are fragile. It's a fragile form of government. And to sustain themselves to endure, it takes hard work. So my urging is for the people listening to it, get out and do that hard work that preserves this form of government based on the rule of law and common humanity. Judge Justice Paul Anderson, I wish we were related. At some level, I feel we are. And I really appreciate you coming on this show. I appreciate everything you've said. Russell, again, thank you so much for bringing the judge to us. Hey, thank you for having me on. Aloha.