restructuring or any massive shifts in ideology one way or the other. i think in many cases we will see that familiar 5-4 split again, or at least until the next vacancy arises. thank you very much. i would love to entertain questions, and our friends from c-span have asked me to hold off until we can reach people with a microphone to make sure the question is heard. let's start there. >> thank you for your presentation. i'm wondering if you have an inkling of what judge sotomayor might rule on in national security cases and, you know, yishe s involving guantanamo and whether shelfs that foreign law or international law should have the same sway as other liberal judges like breyer.

>> thank you. let me address quickly the second part and then take the first. with regard to approach to international law issues my best guess is that she will take the view that international rulings have some relevance. i believe she has spoken or written on that issue and has indicated she does not view those rulings or authorities as binding. they may be relative of authority. in any given case where the court is treating something relevant or persuasive may be of today, but my guess is that she will say these authorities have relevance. with regard to the national security issues, it is a very good question, and i wish we had more cases from which to draw a conclusion. there are two relevant data buoyants i will note. one is that she had a case some years ago that involved

searches on a ferry that operated between vermont and canada and the question was the extent of the search you could subject passengers to and she sided with the government. she said it was reasonable under the circumstances, that a threat of terrorist attack warranted search. she got that one right. that one -- there's a case right now called aror where it involves a challenge by an individual who said that the u.s. government made a decision to improperly transfer him to another country where he was subjected to abuse. this was a case that was argued before an onbank panel on the second circuit so all judges participated in it. judge sotomayor participated, but for some reason i'm not sure why. she wasn't in new york but she was a very active questioner.

it is a has ardous business trying to predict which way a judge will go. it seemed from her questions that she did not agree with the government's position. she was taking a more restrictive view of executive power and authority than the government had advocated. based on those two data points if it appears she may take a more liberal view on national security, but as we mentioned, she has appreciation for some of the interest at stake. >> as you indicated elections have consequences and i think a fair assumption that we would not be enchanted with any supreme court nominee that president obama would put

forward, but there's a con yum from bad to worse that those nominees could fall on. i was wondering where she falls on that continuum. >> my view is that she is a very reasonable choice for the president to have made. you know, if -- in a world where i could say i would choose this justice i might well have chosen a different justice, but at the same time elections have consequences. if you look at her background and experience i do think she is perfectly well credentialed. i think the president is fully entitled to choose someone who shares his views. one of the great frustrations i had during the bush administration was seeing nominees we put up who were impeccably credentialed, experienced, excellent judgment, treated vsh unfairly by the senate or senator senators. we put up nominees who were

qualified, who had fantastic resumes, and yet they were imposed on improper grounds where people say you are experienced, but we don't like your philosophy, which is improper in my judgment. that's the%fective i have in evaluating judge sotomayor. the other candidates, i think he had glood people. i have a lot of respect for diane wood. i think she is a smart judge. elaine that kagan, smart, talented. so judge sotomayor, as i said, i think she is a reasonable choice for the president to make. as far as individual senators' evaluations, that will be determined by the confirmation process, which she will get to answer. we'll see how the senate treats

her. my view is she was a reasonable choice for president obama to make. >> you mentioned among the finalists, but she had a long tenure as a circuit court judge and that was one of the results of justice sooter, the president might want to have someone with more record to see how they would make a decision. do you think we have reached a point where if someone has not only had a long record as a circuit court judge but hasn't even served as a judge we're not going to see that person nominated, governors or other people, and do you think that's a good or bad thing? >> i think that is definitely a relevant factor in tchay and

age. i think the fact that judge sotomayor had 245 record and others didn't was a very important consideration to the president. whether or not it was positive or you have to have that record, i don't think i would go so far to say that. had the president appointed secretary napolitano or governor graham, it swoub a shock, but i wouldn't rule out the person with no track record getting appointed. president obama has spoken that he was attracted to the notion of choosing someone who didn't fit the typical profile. i think that he may also have in mind the instance of earl warren where you appoint someone with a long track record and night approach issues in a way that someone who hasn't approached it would. whether or not that's a good or bad thing depends on the

person. certainly i think you would want to have someone who has an appreciation for the notion a judge's rule is different in kind than the rule of a politician. a judge is applying the law enforcement a judge is applying the constitution. a judge can't pay attention to poll numbers or what the popular outcome would be. while i would say a politician may well make an excellent supreme court justice, i think you need to make sure that person bhover they are, has an appreciation for the rules. >> [inaudible] future topics, such as imlegal immigration, gun control, and any effect she might have on tax policy in the future. >> let's see. taking the my guess is that she

takes a liberal view in the sense she might be more sympathetic and justice thomas or scaly would be to claims of aliens. from my experience having argued some of these cases before her that certainly seemed to be the way she would approach the cases, she would hold the government no a demanding standard, not saying it was inappropriate, but she would makes sure the government had its argument right and the legal alien was being treated fairly. nothing wrong with that. but that was her approach. with regard to gun control, she had cases and was on a panel that revolved a case recently

where prime minister say it shows she's more liberal but others pointed out a conservative panel reached the same result. it's hard to say based on that decision. my best guess is she would take a more liberal view of gun control. again, i would be surprised if she decided with justice scalia and thompson. but when you are on the supreme court you are not bound by precedent in the same way as an appeals court. so the jury is out on that. as far as her role of the tax capital -- >> [inaudible] ask >> she was a judge in southern new york. they hear appeals. she's gotten a lot of experience there. from what i have skeen in some cases she has taken more of a pro plaintiff view, at least

more of a pro shareholder view. so based on her past record that's where i anticipate her coming in. once again on the supreme court all bets are off. based on her track record that's the approach she seems to have taken to date. any other questions? >> you mentioned judge wood and kagan. do you think they are on the short list? looking down the road when justice stevens retires or justice ginsburg? what's the scuttlebutt about who would be on the short list for those spots? >> president obama will have an opportunity to make another appointment. that question of who's the next one going to be is something i'm sure the white house has thought about and it wouldn't surprise me if they made the sotomayor appointment in light to those they would appoint a

vacancy. in light of that, certainly if you were on the short list for the first vacancy i think it is fair to be on the short list for the second. during the clinton administration justice breyer was perceived to be the runner up and when the next vacancy arose me got it. so there's a precedent for rauner up getting it. but there are a few qualifications. one is that you never know what the political environment will be. you can imagine a situation where years down the road the political dynamic have shifted, and that might effect people the president thought he could confirm. the other variable is whose vacancy he's filling. >> i think the sotomayor nomination is less controversial than it would be because the appointment is to fill sooter's seat.

certainly you can imagine a circumstance where justice tomps resigns and the president was filling that spot he might see a different reaction. the appointment would have much greater balance to the court. i think subject to political qualification and the actually vacancy president obama would be filling, we'll see what happens, but i would start with the short list as the pre sumptive short list. thank you for your hospitality. >> up next secretary of state clinton talks about honduras and iran. then president obama announces

his new energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs. the supreme court said white firefighters in connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race. the judge through out the ruling judge sotomayor gave. a look at that case later. >> on "washington journal" we talk to john nagl about u.s. withdrawal of troops from iraq. after that reggie walton on the prison rape commission, then the president for international policy talks about the situation in honduras and columbian president's visit to the u.s. later in the program dahliaa lithwick.

later in the day a look at iran's presidential election and what's ahead at tehran. live coverage from the woodrow wilson center at 12:30 p.m. eastern. secretary of state hillary clinton addressed the situations in honduras, iran, and iraq at the state department briefing. she spoke for about 15 minutes. >> hello, how are you all? i actually missed you. and i want to thank you for the

flowers. they are immeasurably adding to the healing process. i wanted to come down because there's 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 in honduras. they were a test of the inter-american systems ability to support and defend democracy and constitutional order in our hemisphere. the united states has been working to fashion a strong consensus don demming the detention and expungs 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 of the rhee yo group will attend a previously scheduled meeting in nicaragua 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 addresses the rule of law in honduras. we will continue working with the oas and others to instruct a process of dialogue and promote the restoration of zem rat i can order, address the political polarization, restore confidence in their institutions soft government and ensure that honduras moves successfully toward its scheduled presidential elections in november. 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 to democracy and human

rights. along with key partners we won a reafter mation of the principles of democracy that define the american states. wisdom was evident yesterday's when the oas and inter-american democratic charter were used as the basis for our response to the coupe that occurred. let me also say a word about the detention of five british embassy staff in tehran. we are following the situation with great concern. we have noted the statement from the european union. we find that the harassment of embassy staff is deplorable and 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 the responsible withdrawal of our forces from iraq, and in iraq's journey to become a stable, sovereign, self-reliant state. this morning held a secure video conference with ambassador hill and some of his senior team in baghdad. the ambassador provided updates on the situation in iraq and we discussed a number of the challenges and opportunities that we are facing. as you remember, this withdrawal is occurring under the so-called sofa agreement, the status of forces agreement. it is occurring in concert with the iraqis. 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. there is a lot going on. i wanted to come down and talk about some of what we are doing, and i would be happy to take your questions. >> do you believe -- you use the words detention and expulsion. do you believe a mihm tear dupe de coupe dettat has occurred? >> we think this has evolved into a coupe. the president as you know has been expelled. another person has been statuted for the president, but we think that this is a

fast-moving situation that requires con sfant attention chrks we are providing to it along with our bilateral partners and through the oas as our multilateral vehicle. we are encouraging there be a delegation going to honduras following the extraordinary general assembly tomorrow to begin working with the parties to try to restore constitutional order. so we are who he woulding 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 people get back on the democratic path they have been on a number of years now. >> [inaudible] >> isn't the u.s. in an

uncomfortable position nonetheless because you are invoking democratic norms to restore a president who some would argue was taking illegal steps to stay in office? >> i think it is important that we stand for the rule of law and constitutional order. when i talk about supporting the work that's being done in the oas and certainly a distinguished delegation to work with the parties in honduras, i think all parties involved have to take a step back and look at how the institutions in the democracy ared to be working. so there are certain concerns. the extraordinary step taken of arresting and expelling the president is our first and foremost concern right now.

then we do want to work with the parties to try to return to the rule of law enforcement that means everybody. everybody needs to take a step, take a deep breath, and say look, we have a lot at stake and maintaining our democracy. we expect all parties to tchoo. >> you mentioned iraq. i'm wondering if there are ways in which you think the iraqis are vulnerable to living the security situation slip back to where it was? >> well, you know, bob, i spoke to ambassador hill today. i have spoke ton him a number of times in the last couple weeks, and both he and the general have reiterated their believe that the iraqi forces are up to the job. now 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 happened the last few weeks. we have had horrific bombings and the loss of hundreds of lives, but our assessment is that the iraqis are read depi, willing, able to step up to this. as i said, we will continue our presence there. we are not pulling wholesale out. we will maintain our presence there and stand ready to assist them if necessary. >> we could take a couple more. >> i'll ask all the last questions. >> why am i not surprised? >> hope you are feeling well. >> thank you. i'm engaged in a different form of arms control. quite challenging. on iran, the sense we have been

getting from your aids that we have been talking to is that the u.s. policy of engagement is somewhat in o'bains right now as we wait to see this situation evolve. i wondwhear you would say to the argument that any prospect for meaningful engagement for the u.s. and that are drastically set back by what we have seen. in fact you have gotten your answer to our attempts and seen an awe authoritarian regime unmask itself and they are never going to strike any grand bargain with you on anything. >> well, there certainly is reason for us to be cautious in our dealings with iran.

there is in the yet a final process engaged ernlly to demonstrate to their own people. the credibility of the electoral process that has been completed. so i am well aware of the daunting challenges ahead of us or 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're going to watch this unfold and act in america's national interests. that's what this has always been about. it has never been about iran as much as it has been about the values, goals, interests, of the united states of america. we remain commit today doing all we can to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons'

pour. so we're going to watch this and gauge reactions accordingly. >> there's no sense you are getting this might have enhanced the prospects of engagement? >> i'm not going to make a value judgment on what they may have or may not have done. i'm just going to reiterate everything we intend to do is how we view america's long-term interest and security as well as those of friends and allies, not just in the region but around the world. >> secretary, if i could return to honduras. just to clarify, the u.s. provides aid both under the foreign assistance act and me lynn yum challenge so even though there are trig terse you are not going to cut off that aid? >> well, mary beth, we're assessing the final actions. this has been a fast moving set of circumstances over the last

several days, and we're looking at that. much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. if we were able to get to the status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short polt i think that would be a good outcome. we are looking at this, but our priority is to try to work with our partners in restoring the constitutional order in honduras. >> does that mean returning the president? you would insist on that in order to -- >> we are working with our partners. the oas will have this assembly tomorrow. we haven't laid out any demands that we're insisting on because we're working with others on behalf of our objects which have shared broadly. so we think that the arrest and

expulsion of a president is certainly cause for concern that has to be addressed. it is not just with respect to whether our aid continues, but whether democracy in honduras continues. ok? we'll take it. yeah. >> back to iran, the council 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 presidency of ahmadinejad? we have seen this over the last few weeks. 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 regime. obviously they have a credibility gap as to their own people with the election process. that's not going to disappear with thein