review of a relatively small number of ballots. . we are going to take this a day at a time. we will watch and carefully assess what is happening. thank you all very much. it is. do not break your elbow.

that is my last word of advice. every day, it gets a little bit better. >> thanks for coming. >> president obama asked -- announced new efficiency standards for light bulbs which could save consumers billions of dollars each year. he also praised the climate change and energy bill passed by the house of representatives. this is about 10 minutes. >> since taking office, my administration has mounted an effort against an economic crisis. we also want a foundation for sustained economic growth. we know this will not be easy.

this is a moment where we have been called upon to cast off the old ways of doing business and act boldly for the american future. nowhere is this more important than building a new clean energy economy, and interdependence on foreign oil, and mimicking the pollutants that threaten the health of our planet. that is what we have begun to do. thanks to a broad coalitions, from investors to entrepreneurs, democrats and republicans from coastal states and all who are willing to take on this challenge, we have a achieved more in the past few months to achieve a new clean energy economy that we have in decades. it began with historic investments in the recovery act and the federal budget that will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, doing the work of doubling our supply of renewable energy.

we're talking about solar panels, jobs developing next- generation solutions for next- generation cars. jobs updating our power grid so that it is clean, renewable energy from the far-flung areas that make it. the relationship between our autoworkers, environmental advocates and states, we create incentives for companies to make cleaner, more efficient vehicles and for americans to drive them. we set policy aims at increasing gas mileage and the increasing greenhouse gas pollution for all cars and trucks sold in the ned states. we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicle sold. the projected equivalent of taking 58 million cars off of the road for an entire year. even as we speak, solutions to our energy problem at home, the

solution to global climate change requires a bidder shipped abroad. i have appointed a global climate on voigt as we -- envoy as we look for a sustainable transition to a clean carbon economy. the house of representatives came together to pass an extraordinary piece of legislation that will open the door to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, limiting the worst results of climate change brit thanks to members of congress who were willing to place america's progress in front of usual politics, this will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs, which stopped putting new burdens on the american people or american business. the senate will take up its version of the energy bill. i am confident that they will choose to move this country

forward. we have gotten a lot done on the energy front over the next six months. even as we are changing the ways we're producing energy, we are changing the ways we use energy. one of the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways to make our economy stronger and cleaner is to make our economy more energy efficient. that is something that the secretary is working every single day to work through. we know the benefits. in the late 1970's, the state of california enacted tougher energy efficiency policies. over the next three decades, those policies helped create almost 1.5 million jobs. today, californians consume 40% less energy per person than the national average, which has present -- prevent the need to pursue -- to build 24 new power

plants. think about that. california, producing jobs, their economy is keeping pace with the rest of the country and yet they have been able to maintain their energy usage at a much lower level than the rest of the country. we took significant steps in the recovery act to invest in energy efficiency measures. for modernizing the buildings to help americans make upgrades to their homes and steps that will save taxpayers and consumers money. i have asked the secretary to lead a new effort at the department of energy focusing on implementing the efficiency standards for common household appliances like refrigerators and ovens at which will spark innovation, save consumers money, and reduce energy demand. today, we are announcing additional efforts to promote energy efficiency across

america. actions that will produce jobs in the short run and produce -- and have energy efficiency in the long run. we will have standards on incandescent lighting. i know that light bulbs might not be sexy. this simple action holds enormous promise. 7% of all of the energy consumed in america is used to like our homes and businesses. between 2012 and 200042, peace will save consumers up to 40 -- 2012 and 24 2, and these will save consumers. this will eliminate the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plant. we are going to start here at the white house. the secretary has started to take a look at our light bulbs

and we will replace them with energy efficient light bulbs. if we want to make our economy run more efficiently, we have to make our homes and businesses run more efficiently. we are speeding up a three charger $46 million investment to expand and accelerate the -- $346 million investment to accelerate this. these buildings consume almost 40% of the energy that we use and contribute to about 40% of the carbon pollution we produce. we're talking about technologies that are available now or soon will be available. from lighting to windows, and heating to cooling, smart sensors and controls. by adopting these technologies, we can make our buildings up to 80% more energy-efficient. with additions like solar panels on the roof or geothermal power from underground, you could turn

them into zero energy buildings that will produce as much energy as they consume. this might seem far-fetched. we are not lacking for ideas and innovations. all that we lack are the smart policies and the political will that help us put our ingenuity to work. when we put aside the posturing and the politics, then a simple choice emerges. we could remain the world's leading importer of oil or we could become the world's leading exporter of clean energy. we could allow climate change to wreck on natural have it or we could prevent its worst effects -- and natural have checked, or we could prevent its worst -- unnatural havoc, or we could

prevent its worst effects. that is our choice. between a slow decline and renewed prosperity. between the past and the future. the american people have made their choice. they expect us to move forward right now at this moment of great challenge and staked our claim on the future. a stronger, cleaner, and more prosperous future where we meet our obligations to our citizens, and their future, and god's creation. that is the future we are aiming for. i have a great secretary of energy who is helping us achieve it. i want to thank the house of representatives for doing the right thing on friday. i am confident that we will make more progress in the weeks and months to come. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> today, the supreme court releases opinion in ricci v. stefano. it was a plan that was rejected because very little minority firefighters would be promoted because of it. the supreme court sided with the white firefighters in a 5-4 decision, overturning the decision that was endorsed by sotomayor. a portion of the 2007 oral argument.

later, remarks from john roberts over the weekend. after that, we will hear from justice ruth bader ginsburg. >> the supreme court also made several other announcements today. victims of the september 11 attacks may not sue saudi arabia or saudi princess over alleged funding of terrorism. it upheld a lower court's decision that they are protected by sovereign immunity. foreign governments cannot be sued in u.s. courts. they delayed their decision in a case whether a documentary critical of hillary clinton should be considered subject to the same restrictions as campaign advertisements. new arguments will be heard in september. the court rejected the movie and television industry's bid to block a new and digital video recorder system that could make

it easier for viewers to record programs and skip commercials. they claim that it violates copyright law. >> this weekend on "book tv" discover and unfamiliar side of the nation's first president as we are live from the mount vernon estate on the ascent of george washington. joint are three-hour conversation on sunday. it is part of our three-day holiday weekend starting on friday morning on a "book tv." >> the u.s. supreme court overturned a lower-court decision in ricci v destefano, also known as the new haven firefighters' case. the case has been watched closely because sotomayor was one of the judges that decided the case at the appeals court level. joining us to talk about the decision is a supreme court reporter for bloomberg news.

thank you for joining us. before we get into the details of the supreme court ruling, can you outline what this case was all about? >> the city of new haven had a test for firefighter promotions to captain and the attendant. when it gave out the test, it turned out that no blacks qualified for more than a dozen promotions. the city decided that what it would do is cancelled the tests and cancelled the promotions. when that it did so, a group of mostly white and one hispanic firefighters sued. >> at what level was their suit reversed? >> the appeals court said that they could not sue. the city acted in good faith because it was concerned that it would be sued by black firefighters because the test on the surface had a disparate impact.

it favored white firefighters, at least in terms of the bottom line. the supreme court reversed the lower court ruling. it said that the city does not have a good defense and the white firefighters when the case. >> and judge sotomayor, she sat on the second circuit court, what did she say in their ruling? >> she did not say very much. the second circuit was actually issued by the court as a whole. there were three judges there. what they said was that the way that the district judge analyze the case was correct. they did not engage in any independent analysis of their own. they said that we adopt the reasoning of the district judge. we have sympathy for the white firefighters that lost their chance at promotion. the city was justified in cancelling the promotions.

>> in the supreme court majority ruling overturning the second circuit court decision, what did the majority coalescing around in terms of making that ruling? >> the city's actions violated title 7 of the civil rights act. they said that the city, and any employer when presented with this sort of situation needs to have a strong basis and evidence that it would be violating title 7 to go ahead with the promotions. the city did not have that in this case. it pointed to a couple of factors. it said that the city had not shown any flaws with the test. they had not found any reason to think that the test was not adequately measuring important criteria for senior firefighters. it 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. 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 was in the majority on the supreme court? >> anthony kennedy wrote the majority opinion. he was joined by justices scalia, thomas, of lido, and chief justice roberts. -- alito, and chief justice roberts. the morgue liberal judges were in the dissent. justice ginsburg wrote the dissent. she you read a summary from the bench. she said that the city had adequate basis to fear that it would have been successfully sued by the black firefighters.

she had somewhat of a different standard for the employer to meet. she said that the majority's strong basis in evidence test went too far. she said that the city had ample evidence that its test might be flawed. her reasoning was a little bit different from soda meyer and the other courts. her and the district -- sotomayor and the other courts. they were intending to avoid being susceptible to a lawsuit. she said that instead what the city needs to do is focus on the evidence about whether it could be sued successfully. she said that the city's actions were justified. >> of this was watched because of the role of sotomayor in deciding cases at the second

circuit level. what does this mean for her nomination? >> you will hear a lot of discussions about the issues i just discussed. whether this was a 5-4 decision where sotomayor was with the wing of the court that we would expect her to be on or whether this was 9-0 against her reasoning. that is a line that conservatives are starting to use. that all nine justices disagreed with her analysis. republicans against her are saying that that might give her a little bit more latitude to question her about the case. if the court were still considering it, she declined to comment on it. she may have commented on it nonetheless. conservatives say that gives them more of a basis to press her on the case. >> the supreme court reporter for bloomberg news, thank you for being with us.

you cannot read the full text of the supreme court decision at our website. also there, a transcript of the oral argument in the case before the supreme court as well as programs about judge sotomayor. you will find that and more at c-span.org. now in a look back at a 45 minute portion of the oral argument in ricci v destefano when it was argued in december, 2007. judge sotomayor was joined by two other judges in deciding the case.

>> kelso, i am trying to figure out what cause of action you are directing to what defendant? who are you suing for what? >> this is against the city of new kevin. >> title seven is against the city because it is the employer. title 7 against the city alone. what do you have against anybody else? >> it is against decisionmakers. >> all those involved? they are involved in the action. >> i think there are only three board members that you charge. three board members? >> the two. >> then you have the mayor and the two executive officers, correct?

>> the former chief executive officer was there. the chief civil service examiner. she is not named as a defendant. >> the problem with your 1983 cause of action -- do you have any proof that anybody certified this list or did not certify it? >> who survived the list? the board, correct? >> the board takes the list from the person on the record. they look at it under the standard procedure and because of the charter, it is the board's duty to assign it a

start date and an end date. >> that is the certification. >> there has got to be some mechanism by which you have the first day of the list. >> how did 9-board members get made liable for it -- non-board members be made liable for the less? >> the mayor and his staff did so without the behavior to present it. >> this is an interesting claim with respect to the three other people. politicians every day get up and all types of forms and make the

most ridiculous arguments, some of them the legal. i have heard politicians say, suppressed the first amendment and do not let those rabble- rousers' speak. i have heard elected officials say that in the press and otherwise. you are suggesting that the advocacy of a position can make those three others liable for the decisions of the board? >> yes, your honor. >> under what terry? >> under the theory of this and every other circuit. >> they are not a decision maker. they do not make the decisions. the board makes the decision as to whether to certify or not why are you not suing the police officers that spoken against the certification, the experts that called in?

where to draw the line as to whom you can sue for expressing a view a negative view to the certification? >> two things, your honor. a plaintiff who suffers a injury can make claims against each and every public employee who participated in the deprivation in his or her individual capacity. >> advocating a position is not participation if you are not a decision maker. what you are now suggesting is that every public official who speaks against some proposal or another, that that makes them

liable for participation in the decisionmakers final decision? >> i think you might be getting caught up on the word decision. do not forget, this is an employer with they charge about a merit-based civil service system. it requires competitive testing, promotion available vacancies. >> the law is written to make all of these requirements contingent on the publishing of that list, correct? >> i do not agree with that, your honor. certification is a clerical pact.

>> are you saying that they had to do that? >> yes, your honor. i am. >> the reason that they did not is because the other people interfered with their ministerial duty by stopping them? >> the problem that i have with the question is that the mayor was prepared to certify the list. that answers your question. if that board had taken a vote to proceed, they were prepared to issue an edict. he claimed the authority to control the plaintiff. >> i appreciate what you are saying.

did anybody tell the board that? are you claiming that the board under arrest had the president saying that he is going to veto the appropriations bill? i do not think that the mayor ever said that publicly. >> he had them in his back pocket. he was prepared to vick that to the press the moment the board did not do what he wanted them to do. one of the board members was related to up one of the minority firefighters. >> they argue that we should apply the analysis to this case. are you are doing a mixed motive case? i do not see it in your brief. i want to know why we should not consider it waived.

>> i agree that this is not the right one here. it is designed to replace fact was circumstantial evidence. i do differ somewhat west cir in the sense that if race is a motive, they might have a mixed view of that. the problem that i have is that i do not see any motive in this case that does not have to do with race, no matter which way you look at it. if there are mixed motives, that is the troubha