he's been there he's perfectly suited for this type of role. >> i guess what i'm getting at does it mean travel? does it mean briefing? does it mean some of the things he's done more publicly, for example, on the stimulus? >> my sense is it probably means many of those things. again, i think what we want to insure happens is that as we reach these milestones and these important dates that we not forget that work has to be done to get our troops back and to achieve that political reconciliation. this is somebody who can oversee that at the white house and insure that we're making continued progress toward those goals. ..

that our attention and our resources are matched by what we see it needs to happen. i think he is well-suited to do that. >> can you walk us what the president, did he do anything extraordinary to die tuesday posted on the transition since midnight iraqi time? >> not that i am aware of it. he has fairly regular -- i can check and see if they receive benefits special intelligence or when the last time he spoke with

general odierno or ambassador hill, but they are in fairly regular contact kim mack back on the honduras issue for one minute. you said if the president were to come here he would likely speak to the state department, could you explain why he would be with white house officials? >> i think right now a lot of this is being done at of the state department, the state department officials have been in contact with them already and began on not even sure it's clear that he is going to -- to that of the accounts of this country is stopple be in washington. >> so is there some particular reason why it wouldn't be a appropriate for the white house did to get involved? >> no, i think the state department is a pretty good extension of our rich on foreign-policy. >> in the president's remarks last night's on the national

finance committee utah to about why americans are so skeptical of change and he said that americans have been promised legislation most of his has been a bait-and-switch, so by opening the door to taxing americans from earning less than 208,000 -- how is that not a bit in switch? >> because doing a story on the lawn of the white house yesterday, there you go. look, i will do the same song and dance i did yesterday. i opportunity to comment was in the final product of a bill to keep reminding me we don't have a final product for, so when we get closer to some of that's. i would do this party can do it -- i think the president has outlined the best way for and in paying for this. hold on, hold on. i have been asked this, maybe i

asked somebody to find this out of the end of this briefing over the past and makes the same question probably every way for those 10 weeks. the president has laid out what he believes is the best way to pay for health care. it is consistent with everything that he said in the campaign. the president has also sent -- said that we're early in this process and is going to walk -- watch what happens in congress and as i said yesterday i think what has marked efforts in the past to achieve big reform like is necessary to bring under control the cost of health care is a bright lines, that cause people to leave the table. everybody is still at the table, everybody is still talking to each other in an effort to move health care reform forward to coming to do so in a way that's consistent with our principles

and our values and that is what the president is most focus on. >> but why is it not the bait-and-switch that he could not say last night? >> how does one not results? >> in different and result than he promised. >> and what results is that? can i taxing people. >> is that on the president's desk to sign? >> the door is open a. >> is it? >> what is the difference between a bright line and a campaign promise? >> we are not going to negotiate with ourselves, major, we are going to watch this process. again i appreciate the opportunity to comment -- >> this set up legislation on the rack -- financial regulation and that have lines of what it does and doesn't want to do and asking congress to follow those guidelines. >> i guess i'm asking to look at the legislation in congress on health care and see those bright lines. >> in tomorrow's town hall, can

you describe how it differs from the previous town hall and of the soviet continuing pattern until they pass something? >> interesting concept. know, the president wanted continue the conversation that started last week with town halls. we are in and tell which is primarily chosen because it is close. we have got a lot of assets that have been deployed to foreign countries in order to support our visits in the next week. and i think they're going to take questions of of a series in this year video the questions that are received for the internet as well as questions from the audience. again as a continuing conversation about how to move health care reform forward, how to get a bill that cuts cost of

the american people, and gives the promise of accessible and affordable health care to millions of those that don't currently have it. >> what legislation on health care did you send to? >> we did not mack that was sarcasm. >> we know your sarcasm. >> the treasury department was on legislative issues. >> now i have to explain my sarcasm, which i was setting up the point that the bright lines that you discuss in the legislation that was sent was nonsense in this case therefore i was a little cute. i will call on john for a second. >> is a possible what you have an said here is that maybe some of these things do go against

campaign promises but more and bring to get -- please answer my question -- first airborne to get a bill and you are willing to compromise on things you said in the campaign. is that is what is going on? >> the president will watch the process, he is going to be flexible and evaluate as we go. >> is that an accurate depiction? >> i would prefer the two quote main. >> the cbo scores on the health and finance committee bills got a lot of -- stirred up a lot of controversy in washington and when the president last week commented on cbo that got a lot of attention. do you feel like the president's remarks on the cbo were blown out of proportion in any way? that he was complaining about their lack of willingness to make concessions to his plan and for savings? >> no, i think we got this question i think after the meeting. with the president was expressing was -- look, we are

going to follow obviously what cbo, how cbo scores health care legislation. i think the frustration is less with how they scored the bills then just simply the notion that the mission and the job that cbo has in this instance is simply to look at and evaluate some of what that legislation does rather than some of the game changes in terms of a going forward cost. some of this stuff is not obviously taken into broader account of what it can do to help families, lower health-care costs. that is all he was expressing was simply just that there is a broadness to what we are trying to do on health care policy and that is not scored by cbo because in all honesty that is not what cbo does.

rather there is that focus here on just what each individual reports said even though i think there was some frustration that you are looking at earlier incomplete pieces of legislation. >> they are concerned when you come to the 600 billion in medicare savings that the president has proposed, is there a concern that his comments are interpreted as a there are not scoring that? >> i don't think that is what he said or what he intends. i don't think -- i hope nobody took that as what he intended to say because that is not the direction that he was moving. >> going back to honduras and iran from a different approach, you said you're a different on that approach because you want to address rumors we're not involved but that is exactly the situation in iran because you want to address rumors or not involved in on honduras to taken

a very strong position to the very well-positioned. >> i appreciate the characterization. as opinion as in -- as opinionated as a may be. i don't think what the president has done on iran his week. maybe henry kissinger's and others can address that. >> well, in terms of honduras you flat out said the position is that he is president but when it came to iran in a position on the election and. >> well, i think everybody recognizes the democratic process that has happened in honduras. i know think anybody disputes article disputed a week ago that he was the president and in terms of up elections and iran that is who won an election as

the president said we don't have observers on the ground. this is of four iranians to settle and i think obviously if you look at what has gone on in that country there is still a significant number of iranians who don't have confidence in the result that has been reported. >> so yesterday at the reception that president obama said that he had asked secretary gays and admiral mike mullen for some type of plan on how to implement a change in the don't ask don't tell policy, do we have a sense of what the time frame on when that would come from and does the president ask for a time frame? >> not that i know of, but again i think consistent with what we've talked about in terms of working with the pentagon to ensure that durable solution. >> on health care, yesterday both tom daschle said they would not hesitate to use reconciliation to get a bill pass and the republicans are

demanding too high. you believe that parliamentary move should be deployed in? >> again, i think that gives a great deal and have them where we are in the process. >> in a bipartisan bill? >> i think the president has confidence in the system, working the system moving toward, the steps that that many committees are taking to work among six themselves to find a legislative solution. obviously i think having the ability, having lost a different avenues to take this i think congress and understanding of how serious the problem is and the fact that we want to go through congress and work with them in a constructive way to get comprehensive health care

reform enacted this year. >> are the republican demands to high? >> ag and i'm not going to draw up guidelines here. i think the process continues, the present and the administration feel good about the progress that is being made in. and will continue to work in the situation -- in that system to find a solution to this problem. thanks, guys. [inaudible conversations]

>> how is c-span funded? >> publicly funded. >> donations may become i have no idea. >> government. >> c-span2 says finding to the taxes and. >> federal funding. >> if public funding think iraq may be, i don't know.

>> 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, and private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> as the u.s. supreme court concluded its current term on monday, a group of legal analysts looked at some of the court's cases this past year. among the participants are former solicitor general ted olson, abc news legal correspondent jim crawford rainbird and longtime court reporter linda greenhouse. of this event from saturday was part of a judicial conference of the fourth circuit court of appeals. it is about two hours. >> please take your seats we are about ready to begin in the panel. we have this morning a wonderful panel under the leadership of a professor a.e. dick howard, the

white burkett miller professor of law and public affairs at the university of virginia, prof. howard has done this now for several years and we have come to admire the manner in which she prepares the panel and prepares the cases and presents supreme court terms. i am tristan he is going to not covered monday's cases although i am not so sure, he may have some insight on that but i will call on a professor hard to come for it and ask him if he would present the panel. his will resonate is in your little blue book in the back and as are the rest of the other panel members. prof. howard. [applause]

>> good morning to all of you. i think some of you are veterans of previous sessions like this. rio is try to make it worth your saturday morning. i don't want you to wish to have signed up for the spa or the tennis court or the golf links. instead of coming here. if you feel that way 1130 just don't tell me about it if you don't mind. we will review as you know some of the significant decisions from the supreme court's 2008 and 2009 term, the term and that is almost complete. typically when we do this panel the term is over, but they have kept us in suspense. alice at the table with the chief justice last time and try to apply him with an extra glass of wine are two and say, come on, you can tell us about monday's decision here it is not that farra but i have to tell you, his lips were sealed so we

will have to guess about the ricci case, the new haven firefighters case. we have to impanel this morning that i couldn't ask for better colleagues. we have a jann and crawford greenberger who is a chicago law school president and abc news legal correspondent, we have linda greenhouse, you know her byline for many years covering the supreme court for "the new york times" and she is now a scholar of residents at yale law school, we haven't john oldham mcginnis, he is a professor of law at northwestern university school of law. he knows the justice apparent from the inside much published scholar. and we have ted olson also well known to you. a washington attorney who has argued i think 52 cases before the supreme court, that is not a record but certainly put some in the big league of practitioners before that body. i know my colleagues feel as i do in thinking the fourth

circuit, chief judge williams, judge niemeyer, and the other judges of the circuit for their hospitality. an extraordinary staff. i can't think the staff people too much for having helped us with the arrangements so they have made us comfortable and so that the panel doesn't suit your expectations not because the circuit and a staff didn't do their best. we are as you know now in the fourth year of the so-called roberts court. there is the convention of calling the supreme court by the name of the chief justice that is sometimes a little bit deceptive here and we have reason to think this will be in every sense of the world the roberts court, but it is a young court yet. i'm going to provide a little historical context at the outset. instruct mean and i checked this fact out that this week it has been exactly four years since earl warren last settle the

supreme court, his last day on the supreme court, his last day as a justice was exactly 40 years ago. we still remember the warren court and some remember it personally and others have simply read about it but we remember as being in and commonly active court judicial activism the term that often comes to mind and. of john marshall harlan was often in the center of the supreme court was often in his dissent heard to complain that the court really seem to try to find a constitutional remedy for what ever the country's problems might seem to be and he was not happy with what he saw as the courts stepping in to solve those problems and the ever branches of the government seemed not willing to act. on others or more charitable, archie cox of harvard's famous scholar, made the comment to that the historians will record the warren court to have been essentially mainstream, that it was very much in touch with

keeping of a the genius of american institutions. so you have quite a range of judgments about the warren court. there was discussion this morning judge wilkinson asked the chief justice about importing cases, which cases he would identify. when he stepped down from the supreme court chief justice warren was asked if he would name of the cases that he thought during the time of the one car or the most historic, which ones have the most impact and he picked three cases that you thought the warren court ought to be remembered for a top of his list was baker vs. carr. the one-person one-vote decision. a second case he mentioned was the brown vs. board of education, the desegregation case, and then the third and was in gideon vs. wainwright, the case that required if one could not afford a lawyer that one be appointed counsel in the on the cases.

this is not to be a lecture on the warren court but if one tried to summon up, i think one would have to say that the warren court was not especially concerned with technical doctrine. i mean, i think if you could summit of the warren court wanted to do the right thing, and get it right and saw the problem basically move on. and is fundamental themes seem to have been a fairness and equality. those were two ideas that i think helped explain warren court opinions. now, that was 196940 years ago. your member how vocal critics of the warren court were. if you thought the court was i've been in 1969, think about the turf that has now been constitutionalized by the supreme court since the war in court, since 1969. and number of areas that are not on the court's docket then then became constitutional eyes, you could get some of these examples

-- abortion, roe vs. wade in 1973, sex discrimination under the heightened scrutiny and of the 14th amendment, commercial speech is now under the umbrella of the first amendment, busing as a remedy in school desegregation cases, recently gave rights in lawrence vs. texas -- quite a list of areas in which the court has steadily expanded its reach of what it takes to be a constitutional matter. in addition to the new areas either have been revivals of or expansions of areas that were familiar before that point, one would have two-point, for example to the rehnquist court and federalism. breathing life back into the tenth and 11th amendments. finding limits for congress as commerce. i used to tell my students that would never see that happen -- well, i was proved wrong by the court in u.s. vs. lopez.

finding limits on the congress's power under section five of the 14th amendment at one time seemed unlikely but the court has done that in cases like this city of brianna. this is store near expansion of something to do -- due process was attenuated in the 1960's has flared into life in the year since that time. property protection, last year the second amendment d.c. vs heller so that is quite a list of areas in which the court has invigorated were rediscovered constitutional protections. now i can add to that list but i thank you get the point. we remember the warren court for activism and we should remember just how much has happened in the courts since that time. and the story in many ways of the supreme court from 1969 to the present time, this 40 years, one of the themes of that era has been a struggle between

republican presidents, reagan and nixon before and then into bushes after him, to try to reshape the face of the supreme court in light of what they thought was wrong with the warren court. nixon put four justices on the court, renquist among them, solid conservative but then they've had some that drifted to the left wing of the court like justice blackmun. reagan, the justice department i think in that era was very concerned about judicial nominations. interestingly enough that was the time it went to very young lawyers joined the team named john roberts and sam neill alito. they began to cut their teeth in washington affairs at that time. you had, of course, the first george bush, to nominations to the court, one of whom will step down this summer. and then, of course, bill clinton put to moderate liberals on the court, but turnover

during that time then there was the longtime remember 11 years went by in which there were no vacancies on the court. quite historic. during that time if you were to sort of a some of the red wings scored you have to say that there were some extraordinary movements. i have mentioned several of them, but there wasn't a solid phalanx of conservative votes. this was a time during which in effect to the center held justice o'connor's a load mattered a great deal so roe vs. wade was not overturned, affirmative action survives from body to do cruder for example substantively process i've mentioned. and then in 2005 the extraordinary sequence of events within a few weeks in time where president bush nominated john roberts to phil o'connor state, and then chief justice rehnquist died in roberts was moved to the chief justice chair and then

justice scalia was nominated to fill o'connor seeds and then you have the two bush appointees on the court to. so that was the conclusion of the concluding chapter of the rehnquist court of the beginning of the roberts court to. what i thought i would to before i turn to the panel is to give you a glimpse, some of these will be familiar and some may not be, not so much about how the court has changed in doctrinal terms, not to talk of the cases of doctrine but in many ways what a profoundly different chord it is recorded was in 1969. in terms of who is on the course and how they do their business. the first place has been a complete turnover, there are no warren court justices left. indeed, i think there is known on the present four to behaves like the warren court justice. i think there are no thurgood marshall and william brennan on the present court. secondly is a the justices background i was intrigued by chief justice roberts answer to

that question put from the audience a few minutes ago about the phenomena that all nine of the present justices came to the supreme court from the federal courts of appeal, that is unprecedented. i think the chief justice was nuanced and suggesting that that actually masks the fact that the professional background of the nine were fairly disparate before they came to the appellate bench. but as he pointed out, if you go further back again to 1969, there were people on the warren court's who were a major national political figures with extensive experience in politics before they ever came to the supreme court. one thing several worn as governor of california, vice-presidential candidate, hugo black who had been one of that leading new deal senators, felix frankfurter as chief adviser to franklin roosevelt, arthur goldberg secretary of labor, secretary general of the ifl-cio.