and i would be happy to take any questions people might have. [applause] you guys have been sitting here for a long time, sir dedication is impressive. >> i was wondering, you talking about the middle east, and considering where we are in afghanistan and iraq, where we should prioritize ourselves in the israeli-palestinian conflict. what do you think? >> that is a very good question. there has been an orthodoxy that many different people have tried to push, including some governments in the middle east. that is this notion that we have to have peace between the israelis and palestinians before we can pursue anything else.

when i was working in the state department, i spent time working on democracy programs to bring market economics, to work on the empowerment of women in the middle east. . . the palestinians have the obligation to dismantle terrorist organizations, and that is an obligation that happens in the road map near where the same place that the israelis are asked to stop building settlements. it is not just say improve security. i think we need to work hard on this issue, but i think we need

to be very clear about the fact we're not putting it at above these other issues and bring peace between israelis and palestinians, in my view, will not resolve all those other issues. we still have the issue of terrorists, radical islamic terrorists who do not believe in the things we believe in and would like to destroy us and our way of life. although they use the conflict as an excuse sometimes, it is not the fact that solving the conflict will bring an end to what i believe it is the greater challenge in. to the net estates, which is the threat of terrorism. -- the greater challenge to the united states which is the threat of terrorism. >> a lot of people in the media has said your father needs to be quiet on the issue of national security. >> they are wrong. >> what i am wondering is what you think of president bush

possible role in all of this? he had firsthand information. shouldn't he as president of the united states be fighting for these values? >> it is an interesting role that former presidents have. i think you heard president bush when he spoke last week, giving a couple speeches, one in michigan, want in canada, and he talked about how important and effective these programs were. i think it is a mistake to say he has not been out there defending them, and it is important recognize there really is a small fraternity of former presidents. i think they obligations to each other that someone like my dad, who was not part of that group, does not have. i understand president bush's decision to remain silent. i think it is a different decision than one my dad has made. >> good afternoon.

i am from the university of south dakota. i studied it arabic this past year, and i am just wondering about the future of women diplomats in the middle east and what challenges did you encounter in working with governments from those areas because of the situation of women in those countries? >> that is a very good question, and the answer is unexpected. i think that governments, particularly in some areas of the gulf or the women did not play a kind of role in everyday society that you might find it in countries of north africa, they are very accustomed to american women, diplomats, and they are very accustomed to american women policymakers. in my experience, there was no difference in my ability to be effective with respect to the leadership of those countries, but i was able to be more effective, in my view, because i could also see the women.

whereas in a place like saudi arabia, it would be very unusual -- and this is changing, because the current king of saudi arabia has put in place some interesting new reforms. we are seeing some important changes. but it would be very unusual for a man who was an american diplomat posted at the embassy there to be able to spend time with saudi women. the women tend not to spend time with men they are not related to. in many ways, the male diplomats would have access to less information. i was able to do fascinating things. i attended one of the first ever political rallies, all women in jeddah, saudi arabia, who listened to women candidates giving speeches about why they should be elected to the governing body of the chamber of commerce. but no man could have seen that, and without seeing it, you are

missing a big chunk of what happens in that part of the world. i would saying that being an american woman actually give you a benefit, gives you a leg up in terms of operating and fully understanding some of the cultures where women have a different role. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here today. what do you think as conservatives we should be looking and focusing on for the 2010 and 2012 election? >> i think as bay buchanan said, you will have a lot. i think we have seen a situation where the kinds of changes his administration is trying to put in place are so drastic that i think fairly quickly it will be evident that those fundamental values that define conservatism, the government not being in control of every aspect of your life, strong national defense, low taxes, supporting the private sector as the engine of

growth, all of those issues will be challenged. in my view, reminding people of what conservatives have stood for and what those values are that we believe has made not just conservatism and effective movement but has made america a great nation, i suspect there'll be a lot of independence -- independents. we saw a poll, when you ask people if their conservative or liberal, 30% said they were conservative. i think 19% said liberal. -- 38% said conservative, 19% said liberal. people tend to identify with those basic values we believe in, and i suspect we will have a lot of material, whether the health-care battle, domestic issues, national security, where you will be able to tell people america shot go down this dangerous path that is making us into something we never intended

to be. we'll to stay true to our values. in that, we of the best chance of success. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> a lot of liberal critics criticized the handling of the occupation by your father and president bush. i was just wondering what your response to that would be. >> it is a very complicated set of issues. i find that the people who criticize the occupation criticize a lot else as well. certainly, we made mistakes. there is no question about that. but i think it is important to set the scene of saying i believe it was the right thing to do to liberate iraq. i think it was the right thing to do to ensure that saddam hussein was out of power. i think that when we were in the months and years right after saddam hussein was deposed, there are things we did that i would probably do differently

now. i think we had this sense that one could go into a nation like iraq and if you sort of either arrested or removed from office the top layer of leadership that other iraqis would sort of rise up and take over and that it would be -- i don't think we expect it the population to be so traumatized. it was always after decades of said tom's will, nobody was willing to step up and take over. people waited for instruction for everything after the decades of saddam hussein's rule. that was exacerbated i think at the end of the first gulf war when we did not support the she up when they rose up and we allowed -- and we did not support the shia, and we allow saddam hussein put down those uprising. i think there were a lot of people who were suspicious about america if they stood up.

it was by no means perfect, but i think we have done a huge service for humanity, a huge service for security, for the middle east, the people of iraq, and i expect as the years passed, you will see increasingly that iraq becomes an example of frankly the kind of democratic secure nation that president obama talked about wanting when he was in his speech in cairo this week. banks. -- thanks. >> hello, i am from the el university. you did not see many similarities between george w. bush and barack obama. it's something i see continuing is the covert war in the eastern tribal areas of pakistan, how it is affecting the war on terrorism. the front is really moved into afghanistan, but with what the soviet union tried to do in

1980's, they're not being able to stop the mujahadeen and supplies from pakistan, alongside on friendly iran to the west, and then supplying the insurgents, too, along with the drug problems with afghanistan. what could president obama do besides continuing what president bush did? how can we win this war? this really is part of the war and terror. >> i agree. i think you have to go back and look at the very significant differences between the way the soviets attempted to pacify, to defeat the sovereign afghan government and the way we have operated and attempted to live. the country, both in terms of the difference in method of operation and also the objective. i think based on what i read in the news, which is my source for this, it looks to me like

president obama has understood the importance efforts that were under way in the federally administered tribal areas. and despite some campaign rhetoric that criticized us for what we were doing, but in other instances, president obama talk about the importance of at times needing to make sure -- i cannot remember the words he used, talked about cross border incursions into pakistan were necessary to defeat terrorism. i think you are seeing some continuity there and you did not hear much about it because in some ways it is inconvenient for the current administration to admit that in fact the policies we were pursuing are necessary policies. i think it is a very tough, tough problem. finding ways that we can support and bolster the pakistani military said that is more able to effectively fight against the taliban, but against those forces over the borders is

crucial. the president's decision to send troops into afghanistan is also important. the fact that we have general petraeus and sent tom has been so important and influential and the decision to surge troops into iraq. it also gives me comfort, i think he understands what is necessary, although obviously the situations are very different. it is a larger challenge, and i suspect and i hope that you will continue to see the current administration recognize the importance of going after bad guys in south pakistan. >> thank you. >> thanks. [applause] thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," michael ettlinger and john lott discuss the obama

administration's spending policies. then it nathan guttman looks at u.s.-israeli relations. and we also have the latest on the iranian election. washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this week on c-span's "newsmakers," jon kyl talks about what is on the senate's agenda. >> there's a lot of reading involved here, and i was reading some very troubling things last night about her views toward international law, in effect saying that you could interpret united states's constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with

what our constitution means. if that is really her point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she has said it on several occasions. i'm going to have to ask her, what you mean by that? people talk about a filibuster, understand that republicans could not filibuster this nomination on our own. there are not enough of us. and by the way, none of us are talking about filibuster. it is all in response to questions by the media, which are fair, but we're not proposing this. it would be very difficult to pull off any way unless the jet -- unless the democrats joined in. >> that is sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the government funding of college, direct aid to colleges and students is really a late 1950's, early 1960's thing that has grown since then.

>> today, not even government- backed student loans aren't permitted. >> title for of higher education act are roughly 400 pages long. we have a lawyer here in town who tries to keep the government from giving us money. i once asked him to send me title for. he said i would not be able to read it. >> the president of hillsdale college, larry arnn, sunday at 8:00 p.m., or listen on c-span radio or xm satellite radio or download the podcast. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >>."

this is c-span's "america and the courts." sonia sotomayor of broker ankle monday at authority airport but continue to meet with senators on capitol hill. earlier, she milk with -- spoke with senators grassley and fine gold. >> i just walk on the judge to my office. i congratulated her. i think it is quite an honor to have a president nominate you to any particular position, but for a lawyer, which i am not, being nominated to the supreme court ought to be the ultimate professional advancement. i would say.

if you want to talk to the press, that is okay with me. >> i think not. >> how you feel? >> i feel fine, thank you. >> i think we have had enough, haven't we? never enough? >> i think they want us to shake hands. am of course. why not. >> thank you.

>> i had a one on one meeting with the judge. it was a very pleasant conversation. since it was a one on one meeting it would be very unfair to her for me to say anything about the substance of the meeting. and i don't intend to answer any questions, but i want you to know that i enjoyed the 58 minutes i spent with her. thank you all very much. much. >> senator grassley, healthcare? >> healthcare?

>> supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor's confirmation hearing is set to begin on july 13th. friday, justice ruth bader ginsburg reviewed supreme court cases from this term at the second circuit judicial conference in bolton landing, new york. the second circuit court is the one that supreme court nominee judge sonia sotomayor currently serves on. [applause] >> i'm very glad to be with you, and wish i could stay longer. but monday is d. day at the court, the day that all dissenting opinions must be in circulation. so sadly i will leave this

afternoon and go right back to my work table. i wanted to start by mentioning that beyond our business as usual, there were at least three extraordinary events at the court this term. can you hear me in the back? ok. the first was that in january the country welcomed a new president and vice-president. and just days before the inauguration president obama and vice-president biden revived a tradition i had not experienced in my then over 15 years as an associate justice. they visited the court for a lively conversation that all present enjoyed and appreciated. second, on may 1st, justice sutor formally advised the

president that he would leave the court when we adjourned for the summer. each of us released a statement that day expressing our admiration and affection for a colleague we treasure. mine read, "among jurists with whom i have served, justice david h. suit or is the very best -- sutor is the very best. his level of preparation for the cases we consider is aston -- astonishing. he works so hard at getting it right. he is a genuinely caring man and a model of civility. never have i heard him utter a harsh or unkind word. i count is my great good fortune to have known him as a working colleague and dear friend.

much as i will miss david sutor's company i was cheered by the next headline, the president's nomination of second circuit judge sonia sotomayor as the next associate justice. the nominee will bring to the supreme court, as she did to the district court, and then the court of appeals, a wealth of experience in law and in life. and i am so glad no longer to be the lone woman on the court. [laughter] >> i look forward to a new colleague well-equipped to handle the challenges our work presents. and turning to the term's work,ly say some things about our -- i will say some things about our caseload and lineup. then note a few of the most watched cases. and after that, describe second circuit decisions on our agenda.

last year i predicted we might hear as many as 100 cases this term. that estimate proved incorrect, not at all to my regret. we in fact heard 78 cases. that was up from 69 the preceding term. and next term if the 31 grants are reviewed so far, by a fair measure we will stay in the high 70's ranges. of the 78 argued cases, opinions to date have been released in 60. 17 of the 60, or 28%, were 5-4 decisions, a rate considerably higher than last term's 16%. and there will be more 5-4's in the term's final weeks. because several of the 16 cases

that remain pending involve husband issues. even so, our agreement outran our disagreement. we were unanimous in 23 of the bottom line judgements, and 17 of those yielded unanimous opinions as well. the press tends to focus on splits with the chief justice, justices scalia, kennedy, thomas and alito ranged on one side, justice stevens, sutor, ginsburg and breyer on the other. but it is not always so. true there were nine of the 175-4 splits, nine of those -- 17, 5-4 splits did end up in the usual way. but in five or those justice kennedy, stevens, sutor and breyer come prosed -- composed

the majority and there were unusual lineups as well. i will mention three. the first was oregon v. i.c.e. it posed one of many post-apprendi questions. consistent with our current sixth amendment jury its prudence, could a judge rather than a jury find the fact essential to the imposition of consecutive sentences. i answered yes. and in agreement with me were justices stevens, kennedy, breyer, and alito. second baden against discover bank involved a credit card issuer's resort to a federal court to compel -- to compel arbitration with the dispute or a card holder. although the issue it accept had commenced in state court, the card holder, however, had raised

a counter claim governed by federal law. justice scalia, kennedy, sutor and thomas joined me in holding that issuer had to stay on the state court track, and their there petition for arbitration, not in federal court if so inclined. the fourth circuit whose decision we reviewed had come out the other way, as had the second circuit, although on a different ground than the fourth circuit. third and by far the most prominent of this set in arizona v.gant, the court revisited new york v.b -- beton and cut back on the search of vehicles during arrest. -- police may search the interior of the car if and only

if they reasonably believe that vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the defendant was arrested. in other words, no search for drugs when the arrest is for speeding. justice stevens wrote the opinion, and he was joined by justice scalia, sutor, thomas and me. careful listeners would have noticed that i emerged in these cases as the swing justice. [laughter] >> the only member of the court in the majority in all three of those 5-4 decisions. among most-watched case that is did not come to us from the second circuit, i picked three, wyatt v. lavigne, caperton v.a.c. massy coal company, and northwest austin municipal

utility district v. holder. wyatt had a predecessor the year before in rigov. med tronnic. the court held 8-1 that f.d.a.'s regime for medical divines pre-empted all state law -- devices pre-empted all state law taught suits -- the f.d.a. allowed to be marketed caused physical injuries. i was the lone dissenter in that case. wyeth v. lavigne involved drugs rather than devices, and the absence of a preemings clause in that statute -- pre-emption clause in that statute proved as positive. tort laws and the state law tort laws and the state law could be maintained the court held 6-3, claims for inadequate warnings on drug labels. caperton v. a.c. massy