approval to disclose evidence or were told not to to the department of justice? >> i did. >> thank you. and does the leadership of the public integrity section bear some responsibility to what happened in the stevens' case? >> it bears responsibility for failing its supervisory responsibility to know all of the operative facts before they pass on a decision. >> and what did you conclude about the role of the criminal division acting assistant attorney general manager in terms of managing the case? including what you suggested was the department's failure, in your judgment, to satisfy discovery obligations. >> i think matthew frederick,

and i say so in the report, quite sensibly and understandably took an interest in this high visibility prosecution of a senior sitting united states senator. it would, in my judgment -- >> and a number of the same party as the -- >> the administration. >> administration. >> that was prosecuted. >> indeed. so, in my view, it would be completely counter intuitive if the assistant general hadn't taken a serious interest in the matter. i think, however, as we also say, that paradoxically that interest to supervise and make sure things were done right, put in prosecutor to serve as lead

counsel whom he thought was better equipped than the existing team of prosecutors contributed to the morale problems, contributed to brendan mars having decided, because they put me in here and created all these morale problems, i don't want to make anybody i'm going to make myself as little as possible, as she put it, and i'm just going to do my job. i'm going to cross examine witnesses. i'm going to make closing arguments and i'm going to trust what the rest of them tell me about what the state of discovery is. >> well, i have great concerns about this case, as you can probably gather. i'm trying to be as objective as i can in getting information. we will have the opr report. we will go into that when it comes. i agree with senator white house under the finest men and women

we have in this country, those who work at the department of justice and our prosecutors and others there. but this one bothers me greatly. not the least of which i knew ted stevens in my more than 30 years of knowing him, i never knew him to break his word. i never knew him to tell me something that wasn't accurate and true. and for full disclosure, i had that kind of relationship with him. i thought the world of him and assumed that i would -- for whatever time i would be in the senate would be serving with him. we traveled together. we had -- as i told his attorney, i would be willing to testify. i could not testify to the facts of the case, i could testify to

the fact that he was always totally honest with me. as chairman of this committee, though, and one that has the oversight of the department of justice, i realize this happened with the last department of justice, not the current one, i do agree with your assessment y. attorney general holder in dismissing this case. we both have known him for a lot of years before he was attorney general. and i have a great deal of respect for his ability. i'm concerned about what happened. it happened here. i also want to make sure, as others have suggest ed, ted smith, who nobody would know, innocent protection hearings and other

others i view the prosecutor as the most important person in the criminal justice system, even more so than the judge, because the prosecutor can decide not to bring a case as well as to bring one. that's enormous power. the whole population is protected improperly. the whole system is damaged. so, that's why i'm holding these hearings. mr. schuelke, i thank you. >> if i may -- >> of course. >> just as a point of personal privilege, i should like to say that like senator whitehouse, i am a proud alumnis of the department of justice. this is a sad story. i take no joy in having had to come to these conclusions. i hope i never have to do again.

>> well, ic'll concur in that. people ask me what my occupation is, i say lawyer before i do u.s. tt. proud to be in private practice, proud to be state's attorney, district attorney. i was proud to be picked as one of the three outstanding prosecutor t country one year. whether deserved or not, i won't judge, but that's probably the early things that will be on my biography some day. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

in march of 1979, c-span

began televise iing to househol and today our content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books and american history is available on tv, radio and online. we're talking now about the supreme court! but they are the ones that changed this country inevitably with what we call a march toward progress, march toward knocking down the walls of discrimination that permitted us to pass the 1964 civil rights so people whose skin was not white could go into restaurants and hotels, public accommodation. the '65 act, voting rights. '68 act, public accommodations a. americans disability act that said the disabled will be part of the american family. all of that is a march to progress. and, my friends, the one organization, the one

institution that protects it is the supreme court of the united states. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public servic service. >> throughout the week and every weekend, telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites and you could join in the conversation on social media sites. first some road to the white house news, associate pressure reporting that george h.w. bush plans to endorse mitt romney. mr. romney's spokeswoman says the two will meet thursday in houston. they plan to appear together and speak to reporters. associated press also covering the cases, obviously, before the supreme court today, the first

of the two oral arguments today likely just wrapping up. they write that several supreme court justices seem receptive to the idea that portions of the health care law can survive, even if the court declares the heart of the law unconstitutional. that's the first argument they'll hear tachlt also at issue today, the constitutionality of expanding medicaid and we were going to get to our coverage of today's supreme court oral arguments. first up at 1:00 pm eastern and the second argument at 3:15 here on c-span 3, c-span radio and c-span.org. we're asking you which supreme court justice is having the biggest influence on the health care oral arguments. log on. cast your vote. facebook.com/c-span. now a look at the past two days of oral argument and the preview of the two cases from the washington journal. >> this morning, to start off our coverage of the supreme

court health care oral arguments, we have two reporters here to share some insights. emily etheridge, thanks for coming in. >> thanks for having me. >> and supreme court correspondent for "the wall street journal." thanks as well. >> sure. >> jess braveman, justices are questioning the health law. what was your overal from yesterday's arguments? >> well, the takeaway was pretty much what the take in was, which was that the court is very skeptical about the original mandate of the law. see it is consistent with prior press events. and it will come down to the votes of probably justice anthony kennedy, who expressed concerns about both positions in the argument and perhaps chief justice john roberts. >> there's been some scrutiny and some looks at the attorneys who are arguing both sides of

the case. tell us how the solicitor general really did. >> his first year as solicitor general of the united states and the government's chief lit garret before the supreme court, but he is an experienced lit garret and has won several cases in past years. he set up to make this principle argument, it seemed he choked, literally. we're not sure if that's because water went down the wrong pipe or as one administration official told us, he was overcome by the momentousness of the occasion. he began and sort of stumbled over his words at first. once the questions started flying, you know, he did as well as one would expect in that kind of situation. >> jess braveman writes this in the wall street journal back th administration's position, but also offered one of the toughest tests of the mandate, suggesting the government faced a very heavy burden on the requirement. you were in the courtroom.

>> some justices, when they ask questions, are really telegraphing an issue, not so much -- kennedy, though, when he asks questions, it tends to reflect what he's really curious about and more of a genuine electual inquiry. like many things in life are along the blurry line and so forget. so his points were really two. in his concern about the law, he observed that this mandate, in which most americans are required to carry health insurance or pay a penalty that will be key to income, was something knew. he wasn't aware ofwhere -- cert opponent's position, that changes the relationship between individuals and the government.

federal government. on the other hand, he acknowledged that the government's factual elements and the role that the millions of uninsured americans, and rates for private payers and taxpayers is a real thing and something the government had ans to take account for. he did acknowledge that the government wasn't inventing its program out of thin air. it seemed that justice candi found these of great importance and at least from the comments he made at the court didn't indicate for sure he had definitively decided who had the better or worse of the argument. >> let's take a listen yesterday. this is solicitor general virili. >> commerce in order to regulate? >> that's not what's going on here, justice kennedy. we're not seek iing to defend t

law on that basis. in this case, what is being regulated is the method of financing health -- the purchase of health care. that itself is economic activity, substantial effects on interstate commerce. >> justice kennedy, jess braym, what did we learn from that exchange? >> we should take a quick step back and give the context for viewers. this is a case where there is a fundamental right not to carry health insurance, and that differs from other cases where we talk about the freedom of speech, freedom of religion where neither the state or federal government has any right to whether this type of purchase rests with the federal government or only with the state governments and the reason has to do with the peculiar structure of the united states. i say peculiar in the sense it's unique, not that it's somehow

odd. anyway, the -- under the you stalt united states constitution, they have police power. one of those power sincere to regulate commerce and over the centuries the supreme court has expanded the definition of commerce as commerce itself has expanded and changed with changes in transportation, teforth. congress that was once more easily defined can now flash across the world in seconds and the supreme court's doctrines about what counts at as interstate comme grown along with t the question for the court is not whether there is a fundamental right given by our creator notsurance and, the allegedly shift the cost on to others but whether the federal government processes the power to create an obligation in that area as opposed to states. what justice kenny is asking is

does this particular mechanism, driving people to buy health insurance, at least those that don't already have it, falls within this specific grant of power to the united states congress to regulate commerce among the states. >> here are the numbers to call if you would like to join the conversation about the supreme court's oral arguments on health democrats. independent callers 202-628-0205. you can also e-mail us journal@c-span.org. excepted us a tweet wj. we'll hear a decision in a couple of months etmridge, unti what happens with the health care law? what's the takeaway you're hearing after yesterday's arguments? are people starting to speculate on what

may come next? >> we definitely heard the tone shift yesterday after those arguments. as jess was saying, it was a bit of a sharper tone and it seems it will come down to this. it's conservative justices and the democrats came out saying we really think that the court is going to uphold this law. we don't have any other contingency plans. we're so confident that we're just going to keep going with what we're doing. democrats are continuing to push for the law. republicans, for their part, are saying we'll try to repeal this law, no matter what the court rules. they don't care if one part of the law gets struck down if, all of it goes down, pieces of it go down. if all of it stays up. they'll still try of the politi advantage they have by doing that or they want to take action themselves? >> exactly. representative steve king was saying this law could be consequentill bad idea. this law could be constitutional. i still think it's stupid. no matter what, they want to get

rid of it because they don't think it's the right lak city,d morning, joe. >> caller: morning, everybody. all of you for holding hearing hear a supreme court for bringing up this issue. this is a lesson for democracy. this administration, if they weren't stopped -- they're such extremists, they would put this on the people whether they liked i'm real proud that the supreme court has take n this up and defending the people rights. because when you look atpremcou and they have to live in this country and they don't like it as much as i do. this is how the country should work. and i'm real proud that the supreme court is taking this up

and i'm real proud you people are involved in democracy and making sure come first instead of an extremist government like obama trying to force his will on everybody. >> just the question of what the justices feel as individuals, whether they support the health care law or don't, but then the question of the constitutionality and making a decision on the merits of the case. justice scalia was someone who watched, a conservative, but his past case history, his decisions in prior cases gave some speculation that he might be a swing vote. what dop we heid we hear from j scalia and isestion people have? >> i think that was always a fairly optimistic view among the laws of defenders, and probabl

justice scalia is among the least likely to hide the ball when it comes to his thinking about an issue. his comments orite clear he sim accept the premise of the government law. the premise being that the market being regulated is that of health care and insurance is just a transactional device for paying for health care. he clearly sided with the view of the challengers, which was that health care and insurance are separate markets, and compulsion of people into the insurance market was not necessarily related to the regulation of an existing market in health care, and out of that sort of technical economic distinction is really what the heart is about in congress. something about joe's remarks from salt lake city. it is true while we are watching the branches of government carry out their functions as established over the centuries with the supreme court exercising what we call judicial review and having the last word

about a statute's constitutionality, but it's not precisely an example of democracy. it's more an example of the limits of democracy, but at the time that this measure was adopted it was adopted by majorities of the house and senate. the democratically electedjorit came to support the bill and signed by the president, who was voters and a majority of electoral votes on a campaign promise to do just that. so, in fact, the arts at the supreme court are exactly the opposite of the ones that joe is ki are the democratic branches of government, enacted this law and the question is whether the court, which is not accountable to the public at all. for life confirmed, should take what is ancod overrule and strike down law that thet mont of time, or representatives, supported. that has nothing to do with

whether the law's a good idea. the court members frequently say it's not their job to whether laws are stupid or smart but whether they're within the permissible grounds of congressional and presidential authority, and in this case the court would have nothing to say if indeed a new congress a new president or the same ones changed their minds, came in and repeopled this law. that has nothing to do with whether the ones on the books is constitutional, but we should remember what is going on here is the challengers are asking the court to block, to strike down, a measure that the po adopted. so it is, you might say, a lesson in an anti-democratic element within our cons stugt which nevertheless is intended to safeguard certain values. >> em "new york times" and cbs did a poll earlier this week looking at americans perspectives on the health care law that showed of. 3 36% approve and 16% no answer. you see a pie chart how much understandinheeraw actually mea

them. 47% say they feel like they do understand how the law will affect their families but 48%, majority, said, no. it's confusing. perception of the health care law? >> like you said, a lot of people don't really know how it and a lot of people, the majority, see a slight opposing the law. sometimes they're opposing the law because they think it's oug. maybe they want add public option, to go farther. usually because people think it goes too far. weren't of the problems with having, the biggest parts of the law not roll out until 2014, the mandate people buy insurance or pay a penalty, the medicaid expansion, all the things the court isn for a few years. the bill is passed two year, it's been law two years. no one really knows quite yet in a lot of ways what's going to rolls out. people are saying, i know you did this, but i still have my employers' insurance,nefi die.

where's the change? i'm not sure what's going to happen. maybe i won't like it when it happens. where is it? and than is disconcerting to folks. >> joined here to take your questions. robert a democrat in good morning. >> caller: good morning. how y'all doing? >> good. >> caller: my question is -- one thing i want to know is, if the rules aren't constitutional, why the , then, that the social medicaid mandate that we pay all the time, why is that not because that is a method one has to pay. -- her point would be, a lot ty what the people in congress and the other citizens, when they a-

what they are they pass a law. i don't necessarily agree with the mandate itself, but i don't like -- i really don't like justice overturning whether it's republican or democrat legislation. i don't like it. i don't think it's right. you ruleause i think most people, just like i do, believe it will ideological ground. >> let's get a response from our guest. emily, saying he doesn't like the power the judges have. >> that's part of how our constitution is written and the first point of social security and medicare, we do pays, when employed. a lot of the democratic senators said the same thing yesterday. patrick leahy, came out saying, the arts yesterday saying you know, hearing that art, hearing what people said i don't see how you can make that case. i don't see how you can say that social security and medicare ar

requirement is not and i don't think the court would want to go down that path. the exact same feeling he had on those two provisions, to health care and also the point passed few decades ago, there was the same kind of pushback from people saying, this is a government overreaoo far. it might be unconstitutional, buter programs came to be very popular. they still think hat'en to this care law. >> well, thetually made by just ginsburg in the argument but there is a reason aatnd lawyers but sometimes is not immediately evident from a perspective. the reason is that social security is a government, could you say if you are a critic, a socialized program in which the government collects taxes from everyone usurae program itself. and in order to do that, congress exercised a separate

enumerated power within the constitution that is to impose taxes and to spend to provide for the general welfare. so the congress in doing that from its limited set of tools it has picked up a tool where the authority is very clear. medicare and spend, and so medicaid and similar programs are based on that taxing power, which is understood to be quite broad. this, however, is not exactly a tax, because while the government is required people to pay something it is requiring them to pay it to a private company. so that is the distinction now. it it's money coming out of your pocket, maybe, and you're getting the same thing, which is you know, an insurance card, maybe it doesn't really matter to you if it's going to a, or, you know, an entity that has a web address that ends in dotcom or one that ends in dotgov, but from a legal standpoint it has significance. the government argued its taxing

power also covers the affordable care act mandate, that because those who fail to comply with it will be assessed a penalty which is key to income, collected by the irs along with the tax return. it, therefore, falls under the taxing power and agreed with th theory. the supreme court did not seem so open to it. but -- but the point which -- which jce under the challenger's theory, the government could have a complete takeover of the health care industry and put private insurers out of business, doesn't make sense i incremental step leaving industry in place is not constitutional. >> take a listen to justice ginsburg. she's here having a dialogue with paul clement, representing the 26 states opposed to the law. >> so if congress could see this as a problem when we need to have a group that will subsidize the ones