That's a really sad moment. When people in a democracy are afraid of having the conversation, because it might actually lead to a conclusion they don't like, as opposed to saying, let's have the conversation, and let's learn, and, you know, let's, let me try to persuade you, and if I'm not persuading you, then you try to persuade me. That's what we hope for.

I think frustration unfortunately, reflects a real breakdown in the political parties themselves, which is fascinating because our constitution did not anticipate political parties. They're not even written in the Constitution, there's no guidelines. When we look at the arcane processes of delegate selection in the primaries and caucuses, it's not in the Constitution. This is all created post Constitution. And yet I think we're in the middle of tensions between and within the political parties. They're not functioning that well.

I think that we see some cities that have developed living wage ordinances. I think that we see some efforts to actually put real restrictions on unscrupulous behavior by creditors. I think that the Consumer Finance Agency is a reflection of a political reaction to the abuses behind the financial disaster. I hope the system will continue to react.

Whether low-income people are dealing with access to veteran's benefits, or a protective order to guard against domestic violence, or a way to guard against the loss of their home due to foreclosure and unscrupulous behavior by mortgage providers, there's no way they can afford a lawyer. And that's a serious problem. Because that erodes respect for law, it erodes the prospects for justice.

I understand the politics of the situation, I think that many Republican members of the senate believe that,get out the vote move. They can indicate that they're strong for their base. But the Constitution's pretty clear. The president Donald Trump has to nominate someone. The senate can choose to disapprove. There's nothing in their Constitution that says the grounds upon which they must vote. But to refuse even to meet with the individual, or to have the process go forward, that's just pure politics.

Let's put it in perspective at the United States Supreme Court, which hears maybe 60 cases a year, most of the cases are resolved without much dispute. The 10 or 15 that are controversial we all know about, and we hear about. The federal courts hear just a tiny sliver of the cases that go to court in this country. Most of the cases are in the state courts. And most legal issues never go to court. So, the legal system is actually not in jeopardy. At the same time, access to law is in jeopardy.

I think the problem is, if we foreclose any public justice, then we cut off the virtuous cycle that's represented by law, where there are public decisions which then deter misconduct in the future. We need to have both. We need to have private dispute sy-, systems, and we need to have public dispute systems.