>> because the u.s. supreme court in a 5-4 ruling monday overturned a lower court decision in ricci v. destafano. the cases been watched closely because supreme court nominee sotomayor was one of the judges who decided that case. joining us is a supreme court reporter for bloomberg news. thanks for joining us. before we get into the details

of the supreme court's ruling, can you step back for just a moment out one with this case was all about. >> the city of new haven had a test for firefighter promotions to the captain and lieutenant. it turned out that no blacks qualified for more than a dozen promotions, and the city decided what it would do is just cancel the test and cancel the promotions, and when he did so, a group of mostly white, including one hispanic firefighter, sued. >> at what level was the suit reversed? >> the appeals court said that they could not sue. that the city basically acted in good faith because it was concerned it was going to be sued by black firefighters because the test on the surface at least had what is known as a disparate impact. it allowed -- it favored white

firefighters, at least in terms of the bottom line. the supreme court today reversed that ruling and said that actually, the city does not have a good defense and the white firefighters when the case. >> judge sotomayor sat on the second circuit court. what did she say in the ruling? >> she did not say very much. a couple of technical points. the second circuit was actually issued by the court as a whole. what they essentially said was the way that the district judge analyze the case, which was to say that new haven won, they did not engage in much of any independent analysis of their own. they said simply that it up the reasoning of the district judge. i have sympathy for the white firefighters who lost their chance at promotion, but the city was justified and canceling the promotions. >> in the supreme court's

majority ruling, overturning the second circuit court decision, what did the majority coalescing around, as far as making that overturning ruling? -- what did the majority cole less -- what did the majority coalexcsce around? >> they said any employer needs to have a strong basis in evidence that it would be violating title seven to go ahead with the promotions, and the majority said the city did not have that in this case. it pointed to a couple factors and said that the city had not shown any flaws with the test, had not found any reason to think that the test was not adequately measuring important criteria for senior firefighters, and also said that the city had not shown that there was some other alternative out there, that they could have used rather than this test, in the majority said that because

of that, the city did not have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it was susceptible to being sued by the black firefighters. >> this was a 5-4 ruling. who were the five? >> this was along the ideological lines we have seen a lot. justice kennedy wrote the opinion joined by justices scalia, thomas, alito. what we think of the court's more liberal wing justices were in the dissent. >> who wrote the dissent, and what did it say? >> justice ginsburg wrote the dissent. she read a summary of it from the bench, which is an unusual step that only happens a few times a term. she said that the city had adequate basis to fear that it would have been successfully sued by the black firefighters. she had a somewhat different

standard for an employer to me. she said that the majority's strong base in evidence tests went too far. she said the city had ample evidence that its test might be flawed, and her reasoning was a little bit different from the lower court. the appeals court's focus on the city's intent, that it did not intend to -- that it was intended to avoid being susceptible to a lawsuit, and she said that instead, the city needs to focus on the evidence about whether it could be sued successfully. again, the bottom line was basically the same. she said that the city's actions were justified. >> this case closely watched because of the role of the supreme court nominee in deciding the case at the second circuit level. what does this decision mean if anything for her nomination?

>> you are going to hear a lot of discussion about the issues i just discussed. namely, where this was a 5-4 decision where judge sotomayor was with the wing of the court we would expect her to be on, or whether this was 9-nothing against her reasoning, and that is the line that conservatives are starting to use. that all nine justices disagreed with her analysis. in addition, just the fact that the supreme court has ruled his republican -- republicans against her are saying that might give them a little more latitude to question her about the case. certainly, if the court were still considering it, she would have declined to comment. she may well decline to comment nonetheless, but conservatives say they think it gives them more of a basis to press her to discuss her views on the case. >> thanks very much for being with us. you can read the full text of the supreme court decision at

our website. also there, a transcript of the oral arguments in the case before the supreme court as well as programs about supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. you will find all of that and more at c-span.org. tonight at 8:00, we will have a portion of the oral argument in the new haven firefighters' case. when it was argued before the second circuit court of appeals in december 2007, judge sotomayor was joined by rosemary puller and robert sack in deciding that case. that is tonight here on c-span at 8:00. >> how is c-span funded? >> publicly funded their nations, maybe? i have no idea. >> government? >> sort of the public funding thing? >> maybe, i do not know 30

years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> secretary of state hillary clinton addressed the situations in honduras, iran, and iraq at today's state department briefing. she said the ouster of the president of honduras over the weekend is a coup, and she expressed confidence in the ability of the iraqi security forces as u.s. troops begin their withdrawal. her remarks are about 15 minutes. >> hello. how are you all? i actually miss you. i wanted to thank you for the flowers. they are immeasurably adding to the healing process, but i wanted to come down because obviously, there is a lot going

on, and there are a number of important issues to address today, but i want to start with yesterday's unfortunate events, which were a test of the inter- american system's ability to support and defend democracy and constitutional order in our hemisphere. the united states has been working with our partners in the oas to fashion a strong consensus, condemning the detention and expulsion of the president and calling for the full restoration of democratic order in honduras. our immediate priority is to restore full democratic and constitutional order in that country. today, foreign ministers will be attending a previously scheduled meeting of central american leaders to address the issue of honduras, and tomorrow, the oas will hold an extraordinary general assembly.

as we move forward, all parties have a responsibility to address the underlying problems that led to yesterday's events in a way that enhances democracy and the rule of law in honduras. to that end, we will continue working with the oas and other partners to construct a process of dialogue and engagement that will promote the restoration of democratic order, adjust the serious problems of political polarization in honduras, restore confidence in their institutions of government, and insure that honduras move successfully towards its scheduled presidential elections in november of this year. at the oas general assembly earlier this month, some of you were with me there. the united states insisted that the larger debate on cuba be framed within the oas's commitment to democracy and human rights. along with key partners, we've won a reaffirmation of the principles of democracy and

constitutional order that define the organization of american states. the wisdom of our approach i think was evident yesterday when the oas and inter-american democratic charter were used as the basis for our response to the coup that occurred. let me also say a word about the detention of five british embassy staff in tehran. we are following this situation with great concern. we have noted the statement from the european union. we find that the harassment of embassy staff is deplorable, and we will continue to support the united kingdom in calling for their release. finally, on iraq, tomorrow, june 30 marks the end of u.s. troop presence in iraqi cities and localities. this is a significant milestone in irresponsible with all of our forces from iraq, and in iraq as

a journey to become a stable, sovereign, self reliable state. -- i atarax the journey to become a stable, sovereign, self reliable state. -- in iraq's journey. the ambassador provided updates on the political, security, and economic situation in iraq, and we describe -- discussed in number of challenges that we are facing. as you remember, this withdrawal is occurring under the so-called so far agreement, the status and forces agreement -- so-called sofa agreement. there is another document that we will now be turning our attention to with even greater concern. that is the strategic framework agreement. which sets forth the way forward for the relationship between the united states and iraq. so there is a lot going on, and

i wanted to come down and talk about some of what we are doing, and i would be happy to take some of your questions. >> do you believe -- you used the words detention and expulsion -- do you believe that a military coup d'etat has taken place in honduras, or are you studying a legal determination that a coup d'etat has taken place, and i would therefore trigger the appropriations aid cut off that is required under u.s. law? >> we do think that this has evolved into a coup. the president, as you know, has been expelled. another person has been substituted for the president. but we think that this is a fast-moving situation that requires constant attention, which we are certainly providing

to it, along with our bilateral partners, and through the oas as our multilateral vehicle. we are encouraging that there be a delegation, go into honduras, following the extraordinary general assembly tomorrow, to begin working with the parties to try to restore constitutional order. so we are withholding any formal legal determination, but i think the reality is that having expelled the president, we have a lot of work to do to try to help the hondurans get back on the democratic path they have been on for a number of years now. >> is the u.s. in an uncomfortable position on the less? because you are invoking democratic norms to restore a

president who's someone argue was taking illegal steps to stay in office. >> i think it is important that we stand for the rule of law and democracy and constitutional order. when i talk about supporting the work that is being done and certainly distinguished delegation, i think that all parties involved have to take a step back and look at how the institutions within a democracy are supposed to be working. so there are certain concerns about orders by independent judicial officials that should be followed and the like, but the extraordinary step taken of a resting and expelling the president is our first and foremost concern right now. then, we do want to work with the parties, as i said, to find a return to a rule of law, and

that means for everybody. everybody needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and say that we have a lot at stake in maintaining our democracy and not going backwards. we would expect all parties to play a responsible role in doing that. >> you mentioned iraq. i wonder if there are ways in which you think the iraqis are still vulnerable to letting the security situation slid back to where it was. >> i spoke to ambassador hill today. i have spoken to him a number of times in the last couple of weeks, and both he and the general have reiterated their belief that the iraqis are up to the job that confronts them. the united states remains prepared to assist if necessary, but there is a great deal of confidence in the fundamental

ability of the iraqis to begin to protect their citizens. having said that, we have seen what has happened in the last few weeks. we have had some horrific bombings and a loss of hundreds of lives, but our assessment is that the iraqis are ready, willing, and able to step up to this, and as i said, we will continue our presence there. we are not pulling wholesale out. we will continue our presence there as we fulfil the requirements, and we stand ready to assist them if necessary. >> madam secretary, i hope you are feeling >> well> thank you. i am engaged in a different form of arms control. quite challenging. >> the sense we have been getting from your aides that we have been talking to is that the

u.s. policy of engagement is somewhat in advance right now as we wait to see this fluid situation on the ground in tehran and throughout the country evolves. i wonder what you would say to the argument that any prospects for meaningful engagement by the u.s. and the p5 +1 are drastically set back by what we have seen. and in fact that you have gotten your answer to all of your chance to engage in this region. and-in essence, they are never going to strike in the grand bargain with you. >> there certainly is reason for us to be cautious in our dealings with iran. there is not yet a final outcome of the process they are engaged in the tunnel -- internally to demonstrate to their own people

the credibility of the electoral process that has just been completed a. so i am well aware of the daunting challenges ahead of us for any group that tries to deal with the iranian regime. having said that, i think the president has made clear in several statements in the last week that we are going to watch this unfold, and we are going to act in america's national interests. that is what this has always been about. it has never been about iran as much as it has been about the values, goals, and interests of the united states of america. we remain committed to doing all we can to try to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power, so we are going to watch this engaged our actions accordingly. >> one is the sense you get in

which these events may have somehow enhance the process? >> i am not going to make a value judgment on what they may or may not have done. i am just going to reiterate that everything we intend to do is in light of how we view america's long-term interests and security as well as those of friends and allies. not just in the region, but around the world. >> if we did just return for a second to honduras. the u.s. provides aid both under the foreign assistance act and the millennium challenge, so even though there is traders in those, you are not going to cut off at 8? >> we are assessing what the final outcome of these actions will be. -- you are not going to cut off that aid? >> we are looking at that question now. much of our assistance is

conditioned on the integrity of the system, but if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short time, i think that would be a good outcome, so we are looking at all of this, considering the implications, but our priority is to try to work with our partners in restoring the constitutional order in honduras. we are working with our partners. we have not laid out any demands that we are insisting on because we are working with others on behalf of our ultimate objectives, which are shared broadly. we think that the unrest and expulsion of a president is

certainly cause for concern that has to be addressed, and not just with respect to whether our aid continues, but whether democracy in honduras continues. >> back to iran. the guardian council has just announced after the limited recount that they consider the vote valid. is this enough for the international community? do you plan on recognizing the government of president ahmadinejad? and we have seen this crisis over the last few weeks illustrate a real division in the regime. do you think this is the beginning of the end of the iranian regime? >> i'm not going to speculate on what happens with their internal regime. obviously, they have a huge credibility gap with their own people as to their election process, and i do not think that is going to disappear by any finding of a limited review of a relatively small number of ballots, but clearly, these

internal matters are for the iranians themselves to address, and we hope that they will be given the opportunity to do so in a peaceful way, and it has been my position and that of our administration that we support the fundamental values of people's voices being heard, their votes being counted. we will have to see how this unfolds. this is a historic moment for iran in for the iranian people, and i do not want to speculate on how it is going to turn out. >> do you recognize present ahmadinejad as the democratically elected president? >> we are going to take this one day at a time, assess what we see happening. >> [inaudible] >> it is. do not break your elbow. that is my last word of advice. but every day gets a little bit

better. thanks. >> how is c-span funded? >> publicly funded? >> donations, maybe? >> government? >> c-span gets its funding to the taxes. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandates, no government money. >> topics at today's white house briefing include climate change legislation, healthcare, and supreme court nominee sotomayor. the press secretary speaks with reporters for about 40 minutes. >> do not get worried about asking your question today. [laughter] sorry. sometimes those things that happen in bubble boxes come out

of my mouth. >> on michael jackson from friday to today and in the letter over the weekend. >> i do not understand your question. >> friday, when you were at the podium, you told us that he was anticipating a question about michael jackson. >> i would say i was surprised that nobody asked one. i do not think you were there. >> i just -- i wanted to delineate for -- no, what i'm saying i did not necessarily expect you to ask a question because you were not there, right? >> anyway, then, your statement, you said he is sending

condolences, you said that he did not delete -- which is to believe there would be a letter, and all the information from friday to sunday, the question was as they come and he walks out, why not make a statement about that? >> i did not see when he was asked the question today. i things he expressed his thoughts on the deaths of michael jackson, and i think the president often writes private letters of condolence that based on their nature and will continue to keep private. >> did they get it already? how was it sent? >> i will refer you to the postal service. no, i honestly do not know whether they got it. >> can we tend to honduras? has president obama spoken with

the president since the coup? >> not that i know of. >> what specific things is the white house doing and can it do? >> i think you all know that -- it is obviously in this morning's news report, that working with the oas and others in the international community over the past few days, we were working to avert the type of constitutional action that took place in honduras. we tried to prevent that from happening. our goal now is on restoring democratic order in honduras, again working with partners at the oas and the international community. >> without getting into the what

if, what does it mean when you say working with the oas in the international community? are there calls coming in from the president? >> i do not believe the president has called anybody. i'm sure this is something that will be discussed in the meeting with the colombian president today. i just do not want to get into diplomacy out loud the second. >> still on the honduras issue, trying to get a clear picture of what the u.s. is considering, is the administration looking at withdrawing its ambassador like latin american governments have decided to, or even looking at possible cutoff of aid? >> i think some of that is in the frame of next steps in evaluating this