production line of work. -- because out compete them anything that happens in the economy that makes goods cheaper for us to buy makes our lives better off. we are all consumers, not just workers. host: north carolina on the republican line. make it quick. caller: from a very good source, i have information that in the last two years, 5000 people, very wealthy people, have moved out of california which took $7 billion in tax revenue with them. i was wondering if this was true or false. thank you very much. guest: i have heard those exact same figures. i do not know the source so i am not 100% sure if that is accurate. that sounds like one of those plausible but never quite pinned down numbers.

we do not really know the wealth of the people who have left against the walls of the people moving in. when you look at state revenues and the tax rolls, the economy, the unemployment is not working out well. to many wealthier and better off, more successful people are leaving. too many people coming in are at the start up level. when we move -- when we lose our most successful people, that will not help. host: we are waiting for president obama to enter the east room with a layer cake and -- eastern elena kagan. he should be arriving in a mionute -- minute. . .

>> adrian moore, while we're waiting for the president, if we could talk about -- you said arnold schwarzenegger will be presenting his budget here for 2010. what should our viewers here be watching for in that? >> well, it looks like -- given last week we learned in april revenue was more than $3 billion short of what was needed, there are hopes that with the economy recovering we will see revenue increases. the budget that the cover rolled out in january, which had a lot of cuts in the prison system -- >> unfortunately i need to let you go. my apologies and my appreciation for your joining us this morning.

president obama in the east room with elena kagan and vice president joe biden. >> thank you. thank you very much. please have a seat. good morning, everybody. of the many responsibilities accorded to a president by our constitution, few are more weighty or more consequential than that of appointing a supreme court justice, particularly one to succeed a giant in the law like justice john paul stevens. justice stevens has stood as an impartial guardian of the law, faithfully imparting the core values to the cases and

controversyies of our time -- controversies of our time. he has done that with restraint and fidelity to the constitutional idea of equal justice for all. he has brought to each case not just mastery of the letter of the law, but a keen understanding of its impact on people's lives. he has emerged as a consistent voice of reason helping his colleagues find common ground on some of the most controversial issues the court has faced. while we can't presume to replace justice stevens' wisdom or experience, i have selected a nominee who i believe embodies that same excellence, independence, teth, and -- integrity, and passion for the law. our solicitor general and my friend, elena kagan. [applause]

elena is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds. she is an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law. she is the former white house aide with a life-long commitment to public service and a firm grasp of the met rifment x and boundaries -- metrix and boundaries of our system. she is one of harvard's most successful dean's in its history. she is our nation's chief

lawyer, representing the american people's interest before the supreme court. she is the first woman in that position, as well. she has won accolades across the ideological spectrum for her ideas and commanding presence. but elena is admired not just for her achievement but also for her temperament, her openness to a broad array of viewpoints. her habit of understanding before disagreing. her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus builder. these traits were particularly evident during her tenure as dean. at a time when many believed that harvard faculty had gotten a little one-sided in its view points, she sought to spur a healthy debate on campus. she encouraged students from all back grounds to respectfully exchange ideas and seek common

ground. because she believes as i do that exposure to a broad array of perspectives is the foundation not just for a sound legal education but for a successful life and the law. an appreciation for diverse views may come in handy as a diehard mets fan serving along her new colleague justice sotomayor who i believe has ordered a pinstripe robe for the occasion. elena kagan's passion for the law is anything but academic. she has often returned -- referred to thurgood marshall as her hero. i understood he resip indicates -- reciprocated by calling her

"shorty." she understands that lives might be changed by the law. that understanding of law not as an intellectual exercise but as it affects the lives of ordinary people has animated every step of elena's career, including her step as solicitor general today. during her time in the office she has repeatedly defended the rights of shareholders against unscrupulous corporations. last year she defended bipartisan finance reform against unlimited money in elections. despite many believing the government was unable to prevail in this case, elena still chose it as her first case to argue in front of the court. i think that says a lot about her commitment to serving the american people. i think it says a great geal deal about her commitment to protect our fundamental rights.

our democracy must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. i think it says a great deal about the path elena has chosen. someone as gifted as elena could have settled into a comfortable life in a corporate law practice. instead, she chose a life of service -- service to her students, to her country, to the law, and to all those whose lives it shapes. given elena's upbringing, it is a choice that probably came naturally. elena is the granddaughter of immigrants whose mother was a public school teacher. her father was a housing lawyer devoted to the rights of tenants . both were the first in their families to attend college. they insfilled in elena not just the importance of an -- they instilled in elena not just the importance of a good education,

but using it to help others. she said they drove into her the ideas of service, character, and integrity. elena has spoken movingly about how her mother grew up at a time when women had few opportunities to pursue their interests and took great joy in watching her daughter do so. neither she nor elena's father lived to see this day, but i think her mother would relish this moment. i think she would relish, as i do, three women taking their seat on the nation's highest court for the first time in history. [applause] a court that would be more inclusive and reflective than ever before. i think they would be tre

mendously proud -- tremendously proud of their daughter who i believe will make an outstanding supreme court justice. i hope the senate will act in a bipartisan factor in electing elena so she can get busy -- appointing elena so she can get busy in her work with the court. i would like to introduce the person i think will be the next supreme court justice of the united states, elena kagan, to say a few words. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you, mr. president. i am honored and i am humbled by this nomination and by the confidence you have shown in me. during the last year as i have served as solicitor general, my long-standing appreciation for the supreme court's role in our constitutional democracy has become ever deeper and richer. the court is an extraordinary institution in the work it does and in the work it can do for the american people. by advancing the tenan -- tenets of our constitution and by enabling all americans regardless of their background or their belief to get a fair hearing and an equal chance at

justice. and within that extraordinary institution justice stevens has played a particularly distinguished and exemplary role. it is therefore an honor to be able to fill his seat. i have felt blessed to represent the united states before the supreme court, to walk into the highest court in this country, cases that have an impact on so many people's lives and to represent the united states there. it is the most thrilling and the most humbling task a lawyer can perform. i've been fortunate to have been supported in all the work i've done as solicitor general by a remarkable group of lawyers and staff, many of whom are here today. they exemplify professionalism,

public service, and integrity. i am grateful for all they have taught me. my professional life has been marked by great good fortune. i clerked for a judge who represents the best in public service. and for a justice, thurgood marshall, who did more to promote justice in his lifetime than any other. i have had the opportunity to serve under two remarkable presidents who have devoted themselves to lifting the lives of others and to inspire a great many more to do the same. i had the privilege of leading one of the world's great law schools and of working there to bring people together and to help ensure that they and the school were making the largest possible contribution to the public good both in this country and around the world.

i am proud of what all of us accomplished there. and through most of my professional life i have had the simple joy of teaching, of trying to communicate to students why i so love the law. not just because it is challenging and endlessly interesting, although it certainly is that, but because law matters. because it keeps us safe. because it protects our most fundamental rights and freedoms, and because it is the foundation of our democracy. i am thankful to my brothers and other family and friends for coming to washington to be with me here today. much more, i am thankful for all of their support and loyalty, and love. not just on this day, but always.

if this day has just a touch of sadness in it for me, it is because my parents aren't here to share it. they were both, as the president said, the children of immigrants, and the first in their families to go to college. my father was the kind of lawyer who used his skills and training to rement everyday people and to improve the community. my mother was a proud public school teacher, as are my two brothers. the kind of teachers whom people remember for the rest of their lives. my parents lives and their memory reminds me every day of the impact public service can have. and i pray every day that i live up to the example they set. mr. president, i look forward to working with the senate in the next stage of this process, and i thank you again, mr. president, for this honor of a

lifetime. thank you so much. [applause] [applause] >> just shy of a year of

nominating sonia sotamayor nominating elena kagan to replace justice john paul stevens. coming up in just a few minutes we'll take you live to a news conference with the chairman of the judiciary commission, patrick leahy, who said elena kagan's nomination will bring to the supreme court a diversity that's been missing since 2006. i have urged president obama to bring nominees with diversity of life to the supreme court. elena kagan is just such a nominee. orrin hatch of utah sent out a statement reading in part, "i will examine her history to understand her judicial philosophy. my conclusions will be based on evidence, not blind faith. my support do not by themselves

establish her qual fantastics for the supreme court nor my obligation to support her." again, a news conference with senator leahy in about 10 minutes. elena kagan just after her 50th birthday here nominated to the supreme court. she attended princeton university and among the many stops on her raise may she was a clerk for supreme court justice thurgood marshal. she served as deputy assistant to president clinton, and then, of course, last year, appointed as u.s. solicitor general. we'll take you to the news conference. until then, on this morning's "washington journal" we had comment about the nomination from a supreme court reporter.

host: you say kagan is obama's supreme court pick and has national appeal. why do you say that? guest: when she was at harvard she was the first woman dean of the law school and she earned a reputation for merging ideological factions. she also, you should know, during her hearing for solicitor general last year, when president obama named her to that spot, she drew strong conservetive support from different professionals. for example, the former solicitor general who was appointed by the former president bush and also ronald reagan's s.g., they also supported her, among other republicans.

host: and some of the conservatives voted for her during that s.g. confirmation? guest: yes, she won support from seven republicans. not a high number, but there were key votes in there, including senator hatch, a republican from utah. host: what happens next? the president is expected to make this announcement this morning, and then what happens? guest: a lot of activity over the next four or five weeks as more of her record comes out from the white house and is scrutinized from critics and supporters, and then the hearings will begin. it is up to senator leahy and the senior republican on that committee, jeff sessions. senator leahy is a democratic from vermont, jeff sessions is a republican from alabama, and they will schedule the hearings which could, at this point, come the last week in june or maybe early in july. they have to navigate among lots of different factors, including

that there is a traditional recess that comes around the 4th of july. so we'll have to see. but you should know that last year president obama named -- president obama named judge sotomayor on june 25th. he's getting a jump on her by naming her on may 10. so maybe the hearings will start before june is out. host: and if you follow the timeline of sotomayor's con fir nation, when do you see completion of this process? guest: oh, three months. you might recall, she was on the bench by early september when the justices heard the campaign finance case. right now we don't have an unusual case scheduled before the first monday in october, but

i suspect the new justice to be able to take her seat on the regular schedule. host: what are some issues that could come up during this process? >> i will mention one in particular that emerged when she was up for the solicitor general post, and that involves the u.s. military's don't ask, don't tell policy. as elena kagan joined with other law school leaders in 2005 to urge the supreme court to strike down a ban on federal funds to schools that denied military recruiters access because of that well known prohibition on gay men and lesbians serving in the military. she said she abhored the military's discriminatory policy. i don't know if you recall, but the court in 2006 unanimously rejected the stance ofed --

rejected the stance of elena kagan and others because she said it violated the college's first amendment rights. the position that she and other law school deans took rejected pretty vigorously unanimously by the supreme court, and that came up at her hearing for solicitor general. that is it, as you know, that so-called solomon amendment which denies funding to schools that bar recruiters. she said in her hearing in 2009 for the solicitor general post that she would enforce the law as a government lawyer. it hasn't come before the supreme court of course since then, but that will come up. you know, it is interesting. she is the first appointee in nearly 40 years who was not previously a judge. some people will probably think that's a real value. you know, we now have a court that's made up of people who

were elevated from lower appeals courts, but that is not historically the norm. we used to have a court who were attorneys general, who were head of the securities and exchange commission, who had a lot of different experiences. so there have been many senators, including senator leahy, who said don't just pick a judge. some think this is an advantage she is bringing. i'm sure there will be critics that say, does she have the experience? you should know before the s.g. post she had never argued before the justices in her life, and here she was being asked to serve as the government's top lawyer before the court. senator coburn who is on the committee and is still on the committee criticized her lack of experience and said that he as a physician would not send patients to professors who only talked about a field and never practiced. and elena kagan responded then at that february 2009 hearing, i think when you get up to the

podium at the supreme court the question is much less how many times you've been up there but what you bring up there. host: and what about the relationship between herself and the judges that are now on the court? guest: i sit there day in and day out watching her before the justices, and i think it is a pretty good relationship. it is supposed to be contentious at times, ad versaral at times, because the -- adversarial at times, because the justices want to ferret out issues together. she has had issues with john roberts, but i see that in the line of business from both sides. justice scalia has talked very fondly about her, especially because of her work at harvard. not about her performances before the court, but because of her work at harvard, which is one of his alma maters, and he

liked that she hired some conservatives. i don't think there would be bad blood that she would have to remedy if she ends up being confirmed. host: can she continue on in her role as solicitor general throughout this process? guest: yes. she is in a position, though, where she would be -- if she hadn't been nominated, preparing arguments for pending cases, and probably will see some briefs submitted by an acting person, someone in a lower post, who will take responsibility for signing a brief with an argue many that's going forward from here. host: thank you for joining us on the phone. we appreciate your time. >> the president got on the

phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court. and i said to him -- i caught my breath and started to cry. i said, "thank you, mr. president." >> "the supreme court" in hardback and also as an e-book. >> in just a couple minutes we expect to hear from senator leahy, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, in reaction to the announcement a few minutes ago by president obama that he is nominating

elena kagan to replace the vacating john paul stevens. this will be the first time, if elena kagan is approved by the senate, the first time the nation's highest court would have three women justices. so a news conference this morning from senator leahy. reaction coming in from a number of senators, including senator leahy. elena kagan in her brief comments called the nomination, quote, the honor of a lifetime. she is serving currently as the solicitor general. she served previously as the dean of the harvard law school. she clerked for justice thurgood marshal.

reporters gather for senator leahy who will be out shortly to discuss president obama's nomination of elena kagan. president obama nominated sonia sotomayor a year ago and now is nominating elena kagan. the process should take a couple months, probably through june, before we see the first hearings of the committee. elena kagan was the first dean of harvard law school, the first woman to serve in her position as solicitor general. if approved by the senate, she would be the youngest justice on the supreme court. comments from senator leahy will probably be followed later by others on the committee. we will bring you reaction and as much coverage as possible throughout the day and the weeks leading up to the senate

judiciary committee. we want to remind you, too, if you go to our website at c- span.org, you can see other events we've covered with elena kagan. if you look there now, you can see 20 events with elena kagan featured. you will see those events also later in our program schedule. president obama nominated elena kagan about half an hour or so ago. in a narme in the east room, she made comments to you, as well. we show those to you later on. getting the jump earlier today, the first person we have a record of making an endorsement is the florida candidate --

there's senator leahy now. >> good morning, everyone. i hope you all had a good weekend. for those to whom it is appropriate, i hope you had a good mother's day. we had a chance to celebrate mother's day with relatives, daughter, husband, and two grandchildren. but that's not what you are here for. today president obama announced his nomination of elena kagan to succeed justice stevens on the supreme court. the president chose from an impressive list a superbly qualified candidate.

i know when he made this decision he discussed with some from the cabinet before him. it was an amazing list of people he was considering. he consulted with senators on both sides of the aisle as well as those outside the senate. as a scholar of the constitution himself, he brought a wealth of knowledge and insight to his selection process. he wanted to select an outstanding senior justice who was well within the mainstream of legal and constitutional thought, and her recent selection as solicitor general would appear to presume that. he confirmed her as solicitor general. i have said before, i would like to see someone from outside the judicial monastery.

ironically enough, it was just a few decades ago when most of the supreme court justices were from outside the judicial monastery and did not come from as former judges. in fact, with this nomination, she will fall in the footsteps of her mentor, thurgood marshal, who also is nominated to the supreme court for the position as solicitor -- who also was nominated to the supreme court for the position of solicitor general. her nomination will bring to the supreme compourt a diversity of -- court a diversity of experience that has been missing . i urged the president to look outside the judicial monastery, and i told the president i was glad to see he did.

again, you will see justices from various back grounds have long played a crucial role in shaping the courlt's decisions. some of the great justices in history, like justice o'connor who had been in the legislature, or justice brandise, or justice black, that great defender of the first amendment, who had been a u.s. senator, were not federal judges before they were nominated to the u.s. supreme court. chief justice william rehnquist had never been a federal judge before he was nominated to the supreme court. chief justice earl warren who came to the supreme court with real world experience as a state attorney attorney and governor recognized the power of the unanimous decision in the supreme court's rejection of

racial discrimination and inequality of brown vs. board of education. you read the history, you saw he worked for over two years to make sure our -- on such an important decision there was a unanimous supreme court. that the country could not accept this decision if there was a sharply divided supreme court. yet now see a narrow majority of five justices joining together to undercut protections millions of americans depend on for their very livelihood. i hope this confirmation will see an impact of the nation's highest court on all our lives. there is no better time to

consider these issues than as we look to the next justice. this is an opportunity for all americans to learn about the importance of the court's decisions on all our lives, not as an opportunity to thank oh, attack the -- opportunity to attack the president's nominee. this committee will soon review her nomination. we recently reviewed her record in connection with her becoming solicitor general. that is a position in which she received by partisan -- bipartisan support. we will have to go through this again to confirm her as a justice of the supreme court. we will have an opportunity to ask elena kagan about the

important role the supreme court plays in the lives of each and every american. she will no doubt be questioned about her legal record and how she will approach the law from a different perspective as a member of the supreme court rather than as an advocate before the supreme court. i look forward to welcoming the american people to those hearings to make sure there is open and -- to make sure it is as open pot american public as policy so she can respond to those critics who ghana tack -- who began attacking her even before she was nominated. you know, there are millions of americans that will be affected by this nomination. there are only 100 americans who get a chance to vote on this nomination, the 100 united states senators. we have to represent all 300 million americans in making a decision on a lifetime

nomination. bronfman said the senate is and should be the conscience of the united states. the decisions nade in the highest court affect all 300 million americans. we 100 americans have a duty to the other 300 million to make a wise decision. our constitution deserves a civil and thoughtful debate on this nomination. all 100 must stand up and vote yes or no. thanks very much. >> mr. chairman -- >> oh, there are some. yes. >> it was said a senator has to

look at this far, far different than the solicitor general position. what would you say about that? >> i am glad to see someone outside of the judicial body. it is only in our recent decades that the justices were all from the federal courts. some of our most dynamic courts have been those where they game from different back grounds. i worry when you are in a judicial monastery you don't have the real-world experience you might have otherwise. of course, it is a little irony if any were to complain she hasn't been a judge. she was nominated to be a member of the d.c. circuit court, called the second highest court in the land, and the republicans

filibustered her as they did some 60 of president clinton's nominees. you can't on the one hand say, man, we did a great job we blocked her nomination and on the other hand say, well, she should have been a judge before we consider her. let's deal with what we have right now. we have a superb nominee. we have someone who should be seen by the american people as the best this country can offer, and we ought to confirm her. >> do you agree with the idea that the senators should approach this nomination different than her s.g. process? >> i think any lifetime appointment you set possibly a different standard. in many ways, the questions become the same. you are talking about one's legal ability, one's legal background, just as she was highly rated when she was nominated by president clinton

to go on the court of appeals before she was filibustered by the republicans to have her highest rating there. she has been dean of the harvard law scompool. she is solicitor general. of course each confirmation you look at separately. virtually all the questions that may be asked have already been asked. >> senator, what would the time frame be? >> i will meet with miss cagen this week. after i have met with her, i will set a timetable. obviously we will finish it this summer so she can be sitting on the court when it comes back into session either sometime in

september or october. >> having reviewed the record of elena kagan, what aspects of her record make you confident that she will be a good selection for the supreme court? >> actually, we have had many members of the supreme court that have not had a lot of experience. she has real life experience. it would be hard to find people in this consumer tr -- country who would stand out as a greater legal scholar than she does. >> senator mcconnell made the point that she has had a brief litigation experience. others have described her performances before the supreme court as almost shaky.

does that give you pause at all? >> no. they can raise those questions at the confirmation hearing. i think she will be very, very impressive in the confirmation hearing. you know, we have some republicans who would automatically oppose anybody who was nominated. the president could nominate moses the law-giver, but i told the president, do you realize if you appointed moses, the law giver, somebody would raise, but he doesn't have a birth certificate! where is his birth certificate? come on, we're falking -- talking about a supreme court justice. vote up, vote down. she will be confirmed. >> since the s.g. confirmation, it sounds like some republicans are going to make a kind of a new litmus test whafment is the

counter of the democrats on the committee? i tell you what, i will be happy to counter the republicans when they step forward in the light of day and make their arguments. that will be the time to counter them. >> she lost by one republican vote, including arlen specter. will he need more information? >> well, we will have a thorough and complete confirmation hearing. i think one of the things both democrats and republicans agreed upon after the sotomayor hearing , we conducted a hearing which was open and fair and people had a chance to ask any questions

they wanted. i will do the same here. we will have -- i would hope the american public would pay as much attention to this one as they did to sotomayor. it was amazing the thousands of e-mails i got. my son and i would walk down the street in vermont. a number of people just come up and say, they blocked the hearings, they cared about the hearings, they cared about what was involved. i had hoped we would have exactly the same thing in this hearing. >> senator, i know you don't think this should make a difference, but it is an election year. >> i'm up this year? [laughing] will it make a difference?

it shouldn't. we're given six-year terms. we're given terms as senators where we are supposed to be the conscience of the nation. we are supposed to represent the 300 million americans. if people want to play politics with this, then they are not really fulfilling their duties and what they should do as as -- what they should do as a senator. >> we do not know a lot about the nominee, but we know at one point she was opposed to don't ask, don't tell. what effect do you think that might have on the nomination? >> and then she did let them come on the law school. i suspect there were plenty of recruiting officers close by the campus. heck, when my youngest son joined the marine corps, he found he could walk the three or four blocks from campus to go to the recruiting station and sign

up. thank you. >> do you think officials will advocate for a widening of the public risk for marandizing. >> i saw something in the press. i haven't talked about that. you know, miranda came down when i was a prosecuteor -- prosecuter. i get a kick out of the number of americans that will pull out of their pocket a card with my name printed on it with the miranda warning. i never had a case where we failed to get a conviction when we had given the miranda warning. when i was a prosecutor -- most prosecutors find it doesn't affect whether they get a

conviction or not. it has not been a hindrance. you know, i think if somebody -- i think somebody tried a case once in a burglary when they caught the person in the act and the defense attorney said, did you get the miranda warning. he said, i put the handcuffs on him and did. then i asked him to put down the bag of stolen money. i think the jury got the idea. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> the first reaction to the nomination of elena kagan to the supreme court announced by president obama this morning. senator leahy of the senate judiciary committee. we will hear from them sometime this summer. reaction from the republicans on

that committee. they are saying it is their duty to give ms. kagan a full and fair review. they said they will examine ms. kagan's entire record to understand her judicial philosophy. my conclusions will be based on evidence. elena kagan with a background in education from princeton university and she served as dean for oxford law school. she also clerked as dean for justice thurgood marshal back in the 1980's. we are going to take you back to february of last year and the nomination for elena kagan to be solicitor general. she was asked about a number of issues, including the use of torture, interrogation. this is from february, 2009. this runs about 15 palestinians.

-- this runs about 15 minutes. >> members of the committee, i am grateful. i am grateful to the president for nominating me to this important position. i am grateful to the attorney attorney for supporting me. i am particularly grateful to those members on the other side of the aisle that met with me prior to this hearing. i enjoyed those talks, and i thank you for them. i want to tell you about the two other people who are not here with me today. i wish my parents could have lived to see this day. my father was a lawyer himself and took great pride in my professional accomplishments. he died about 15 years ago now, but he lived to see me clerk for the supreme court and become a professor at the university of chicago. he thought all of that was pretty great. my mother died last summer so her absence is particularly

difficult for me. she grew up at a time when few women pursued high-powered professional careers, and maybe for that reason she relished my doing so. she would have loved this day. both my parents wanted me to succeed in my chosen profession, but more than that, both drilled into me the importance of service, character, and integrity, and i pray every day that i live up to those standards. i hope one other person is looking down on this hearing room today. as you know, i had the privilege of clerking for justice thurgood marshal, the greatest lawyer, i think, of the 20th century. mr. marshal had some very good jobs in his life, but he always said the best, bar none, was being solicitor general. i am sure there are many reasons for that, but i am thinking about one in particular. i think he must have been so deeply moved to walk into the

most important court in this country when it was deciding its most important cases, and to say his name and say, "i represent the united states of america." and i think he would have liked that a former clerk of his would be nominated for the same job and if confirmed would be able to say those same most thrilling and most humbling words for a lawyer. to have the opportunity to lead the solicitor general's office is the opportunity of a lifetime. as you know, this is an office with a long and rich tradition. not only of extraordinary legal skill but also of extraordinary professionalism and integrity. that is due in large measure to the people who have led it. i especially want to acknowledge generals olsen and clement and gar for their superb service in

these last few years. at a time of some difficulty for the office, they have maintained the highest integrity of the office and they have served their client, the united states of america, exceedingly well. and of course they have been joined in doing so by the career lawyers and others in the solicitor general's office. these men and women have been justly called the finest law firm in the country and they represent the gold standard in central public service. the solicitor general's office is unusual in our government in owing spobs to all three of the coordinate branches in our system of separated powers. the striking feature in this office, the solicitor general traditionally and rightly has been accorded a large measure of independence. most obviously the solicitor general reports to the attorney general and through him to the president and defends the

regulations, policies, and practices of the executive branch when these are challenged. in this role the solicitor general is the principal advocate of the executive branch in the courts of the united states. at the same time the solicitor general has no less critical responsibilities to congress. they have to vigorously defend the constitution against attack. traditionally outside of a very narrow band involving separation of powers, the solicitor general has defended any federal statute in support of which any reasonable argument can be made, and i pledge to continue this strong presumption that the solicitor general's office will defend each and every statute enacted by this body. finally, the solicitor general's office has unique obligations to the supreme court of the united states. it is frequently said the

solicitor general serves as the 10th justice. i believe senator cardin made reference to that phrase. i suspect for the justices to think -- think of the solicitor general mores -- think of the solicitor general more as the 37th clerk. regardless, the solicitor general must exercise care in invoking the court's decisions and must be scrupulous in every reputation -- representation to the court. in this case i agree that the most important of all of the solicitor general's duties is to be true to the rule of law. it would be an honor to serve as solicitor general and if this senate sees fit to confirm me, i would do everything possible to live up to the great traditions,

expectations, and responsibilities of the solicitor general's office. thank you very much. >> i would like to ask a favor, if you would please read and then when you are finished, give me your thoughts on an article written by rex lee one of the pre-eminent solicitor generals that served under president reagan in which he describes from his perspective the unique and important role as steward of the office of s.g., that the people who have held that position have. i would like to get your take on it. i think it is a good description of what a good s.g. should be. >> senator, if i may -- >> yes. >> i was told yesterday that one of your staff said you had an interest in this article, and i read this article, and i agree. it is a very thoughtful powerful article about the s.g.'s role. and i might have a quibble here

or there, but i basically found myself agreeing with all the main points. >> for those who haven't, it is a bit of a template on how an s.g. approaches decisions regarding what cases to take. i would like to discuss it with you further. i would like to follow-up on the comment senator coburn said about the matter of experience. i like to talk to my grandchildren about the difference between intelligence and wisdom. from my perspective, wisdom is a combination of learning, knowledge, and experience which also produces knowledge. obviously i'm encouraging her to get that learning and to get that experience. while it is true that you because of your stellar academic background bring a great deal to the court as a litgant, it is also true that there is much to be gained by the experience of

participating in a lot of oral arguments before pleat -- appellate courts. you are usually facing an experienced litigator who has practiced before the court on the other side. and there is an advocasy ability that comes not just from academic knowledge but by doing it. you have learned from trial and error what works and what doesn't work. i suggest from the position of s.g. what methods can be effective and even what cases you can take or not case from the possibility of winning. what i'm saying is that academic knowledge while important, and good public speaking, while important, in my view are no substitute for having done

litigation which causes you in that arena where you have to think very quickly and where your past experience can guide you in how to proceed, that that as compared to someone without the experience, someone with just the academic knowledge is less suited to the position. now, i appreciate that you have great confidence in your abilities. i would commend to you some degree of humility when you face someone very experienced litigator who knows the in's and out's of the argument because he or she has done it before. .

i will say to you, senator, i am in complete sympathy with what you say about humility. i like to think one of the good things about me is that i know when i do not know. and i learned when i need to learn it. this is one of those things where i'm going to make a very intensive study of what i might be missing when i come to the job, if you see fit to confirm. and to talk to a lot of people within the s.g.'s office and outside the office, and tried to figure out how to fill any gaps there are. when you think about a job like s.g., frankly anybody has some gaps. one person may not have the litigating experience, another may not have the deep knowledge

of constitutional or statutory law. but what you have to do is figure out what you do not know. >> sure, i appreciate that. the most knowledgeable surgeon still has to get those figures working to do the right kind dosewing. there is a big difference between a 55-minute lecture and being constantly interrupted by the court to where you're wonderful presentation gets sliced down to about five coherent things you are able to say. practice enables you to do that. let me quickly ask -- and this relates to the solomon discussed earlier. the brief you signed and was submitted on behalf of the group of law schools, the court itself said in a rather cramped

interpretation of the law -- was not kind to the interpretation in the brief submitted, the think if you had been solicitor general when rumsfeld had come to the court that you would have defended the statute, and prevented universities from discriminating against military recruiters? >> i would have. i'm glad you asked. it held the statute unconstitutional. it was not the ground on which we are giving go there is a clear obligation on the part of the s.g. to find a statute unless there is no reasonable basis to argue for the statute. in this case it is historic, because i know the facts and the litigating posture. i feel comfortable saying, of course, there was a reasonable basis. my gosh, the supreme court ruled

9-0. i would have defended it in the same exact way that senator feingold noted that olson and clement defended the mccain law. >> that was elena kagan last year before the senate committee, approved by 61 -39. this is her speaking as an all monster at harvard. presideet obama officially announced that elena kagan, solicitor general, is his choice to replace john paul stevens on the supreme court. we have heard from senator patrick leahy, and mitch mcconnell said his party would make sure there was a thorough process, no rash on the nomination. we will give you a look also at elena kagan in her role as

solicitor general. she spoke last year in july at the ninth circuit conference, and talked about the duties. she talked about how she prepares to argue before the supreme court. it runs about 45 minutes. >> can we have your attention, please? >> before i introduce the last portion of our program, there is a for money to your tables if you are interested in the dr.'s

scions. now it is my great pleasure to introduce the participants of the last part of our program. i would first like to introduce you to solicitor general elena kagan, confirmed as the 45th solicitor general in march 2009. prior to her confirmation she was the charles hamilton houston professor of law in the 11th -- and the 11th being of harvard law school. during her nearly six years as dean, the law school enhanced its faculty, modernized curriculum, developed a new campus facilities, and promoted public service. she taught administrative law, constitutional law, civil procedure, and seminars on issues involving separation of powers. from 1995 until 1999, she served in the white house first as an

associate counsel to the president, then as deputy assistant for domestic policy and deputy director of the domestic policy council. she clerked for the judge of the u.s. court of appeals in the d.c. circuit. she clerked for justice thurgood marshall of the supreme court. she received her b.a. ceramic commodity from princeton in 1981, attended western college, oxford, as princeton graduating fellow. she received her master's of philosophy in 1983. she then attended harvard law school where she was supervising editor of the harvard law review and graduated magna cum laude in 1986. [applause] posing the questions will be our

own chief judge, kozinsky, pointed the circuit judge for the ninth circuit. he was elevated to chief judge of december 1, 2007. he graduated from ucla. and from ucla law school in 1975. prior to his appointment to the appellate bench, he served as chief judge of the u.s. claims court. he was special counsel to the merit systems protection board, assistant counsel, office of counsel to the president, deputy legal counsel, office of president-elect ronald reagan, and an attorney at a couple of firms, and a law clerk to a couple of justices.

[applause] last but not least, our own conference chair who was a partner in the los angeles office of the law firm here in this chair of the media and entertainment practice, more than 20 years of litigation experience in the intellectual property and first amendment- related litigation, including representation of tv and radio broadcasters, cable companies, motion-picture producers, and distributors, production companies, newspaper and magazine publishers, both authors, and website owners. but that the trial and appellate level of state courts. she also serves on a number of non-profit boards and organizations, currently serving on the governing board of the

aba forum and acting as vice chair of the media committee. take it away. >> thank you. good morning, elena. welcome to the ninth circuit. i will refer to general kagan as elena because we're such old friends. i was visiting harvard law school and she was a law student. we participated in a poker game. one of us -- >> who win? >> one of us walked off with the sum of $3.50. the dispute has been ever since whether i walked off with her money, or she walked off with mine. i assert that i was the winner.

[laughter] good job. so, in those rare instances when the u.s. loses before the circuit courts, we tell us what factors are considered by the solicitor general? and also, related, when the u.s. wins, but factors are considered [unintelligible] ? >> when we think about whether to file a potential we looked at it in part through the lens of the court. we ask of the court will do this, what standards the court applies. we try to apply those same standards. for example, we will ask ourselves, is there a real

circuit here. if so, that is one of the factors the court thinks about. that will guide us as well. we also think, as the court things, about the importance of the question presented. as well, we look at it through our own eyes, and say how important is it to the u.s., our client, to have this case decided by the court. it might be important for any number of reasons. it might be to us because there is a circuit split, a lack of uniformity. because there is an extremely important federal question involved, because some federal program has been undermined as a result of the circuit court's decision. because some set of doctors cannot do what they would otherwise want to. it might be important because a great deal of money is involved. we just filed a petition last week where we said the federal circuit got a matter incorrect

relating to royalties from oil and gas leases, and the error will cost the u.s. treasury of boards of $20 billion. so, any number of federal interests we will think about. but also, how it is likely to look from the court's perspective. we know the court count on us to take into consideration its own set of criteria and standards. in terms of oppositions, there are so many to write. we could not file them in every case. we are trying to make the cut as to whether they raise serious questions and the questions were

the court wants to hear from the opposing party. we waive about half for the opposition rights. we look at them, say it is not really a serious question. the court will not take seriously this petition. we do not have to oppose it. then we file in the other half of cases. sometimes we get it wrong. sometimes the court will tell us we waived opposition rights. but we think the petition raises more serious questions than you did. we want you to file here. >> following up, looking at the numbers between 1985 until 2002, the statistics are rid suggested the solicitor general's petitions were accepted more than 50% of the time. the percentage seems higher

even since then, closer to 70%, or 80%. is that a reflection of what you described as the way you come about deciding whether to file, or something you take into account in filing, the fact is more likely to be excepted by the court the? >> it is a reflection of the fact we apply a different kind of standard then i think most lawyers do. if i'm in private practice, a climate get on the phone and say i want to take this all the way up to the supreme court. even if you know there's not a great chance the court will accept it, you might tell the client there's not much chance, but if the client insists, who are you to say otherwise? i say no all the time. there is a part of my do that is taking irate phone calls from

agency general counsel's asking, why are you taking this case to the court? i tell them know all the time. i say the court will not take it, or our credibility is on the line. or i will say, forget our credibility -- it is not worth the time of the lawyers in my office. we have only 22 lawyers and the solicitor general's office. we need to be careful about how we yallocate their time. somebody said recently to me, maybe those figures are too high. i think there are up to 70% of the time. someone said, maybe that is an indication that you are filing too few petitions. i used to be a big fan in my old job as dean of saying if you do

not fail sometimes, it means you're not trying to do enough things. there is a point there. i took a look at the s.g. statistics of the last 10 or 20 years. around six or seven years ago there was a drop-off in the number we file. so, i think we may take a close look. decide whether we are using to find a filter. >> related, there is a different perception as to the role of the solicitor general. and perhaps a perception of different philosophies as to the proper role of the office. some say you should be an advocate for the executive branch, and some say it is more

of the conscience of the government. it ought not to loy's serve at the bidding of the executive branch. -- ought not to always served at the bidding. they are not highly exclusive mutual positions. are you still developing your philosophy? >> that is interesting. i'm sure i still am developing my philosophy. i may give a different answer several years from now. right now it seems as if the difficult part of the job, but also the fun part is that you're bouncing a lot of different things and interests. you named two of them. i'll add more. you're very much an advocate for the executive branch.

represent the u.s. in the highest court. i am defending its policies, practices, various regulations. it is a critical part of the job. it means that i am a member of the executive branch, part of the presidential team, part of the attorney general's team. at the same time, i have extremely important obligations to other parts of the government. we have the separated powers. but i do owe obligations to each of them. i owe obligations to the congress. it is to defend statues, regardless of whether the executive branch likes the statutes. it can be controversial. until the statute is changed,

the solicitor general and department of justice generally has long thought part of its responsibility is to defend the statute says in court. the office also owes important obligations to the courts. particularly to the supreme court. there we are the repeat player. people have talked about the intent justice. regardless of whether that is an apt term for it, there's no question the solicitor general has a relationship with the court different from almost any litigant with any court. it involves a candor, honesty, directness with the court that i think judges seldom see. we will go into the court sometimes and confess error, or will write briefs that say, we could say this is the most meaningful thing in the world,

but honestly is just a marginal thing. it is something litigants' do not often do. finally, my client is none of those actors. it is the united states. in some statecents, we are representing the most fundamental principles of bitter constitutional system. -- in some sense. the great solicitors general are people who have been able to balance all those competing interests, intentions to take the mall and accommodate them in some good, wise way.

>> before i pass the question to kelly, i would try to save a few minutes for audience questions. not speeches. as you were listening, i want people to think about the possibility of asking. >> justice souter has famously said that cameras would come in to the supreme court ruling over his dead body. sonia sotomayor seems to have an opposite view. if you are asked whether c-span should be allowed to televise, what would you say and why? >> i have a feeling they will not ask me. this is one -- they will make the decision themselves and probably should. they're the folks who best know the dynamics on the court. i would not pretend to give them

advice. i have thought about the question a bit as i have watched in the past several months. i was confirmed by the senate on march 21. the day after that was the supreme court's march 6-n. a one to every argument there and for the april sitting as well. i watched the court and a more sustained way. i was struck by that if cameras were in the courtroom, the american public would seek enemies and extraordinary events. this court is so smart and so prepared and so engaged. everybody gets up there at the podium -- the toughest questions are thrown at the

person. the debate has extraordinary intellectual depth. years back when c-span first came on and put the cameras and the legislative chambers -- it was a little embarrassing before they got right. it was clear that no one was there. i think if you put the cameras the court room, people would see. wow, an institution of the government working at a really high level. so, that is one plus factor. >> to meet a little about the occasional practice when the solicitor general confesses ever.

[unintelligible] no, the court of appeals was wrong. tell me, us a little about the process and held the solicitor general goes about making that kind of decision. and specifically what it thinks about the fact that the doj has misled the lower courts in reaching the decision then the? >> i did this once last month. >> not and the ninth circuit case? >> there is still time. [laughter] >> i do not remember which could this case came from. it was a criminal case. the petition was honestly not

very good. it was hard to tell what kind of argument was being made. [laughter] >> honestly, the most natural thing in the world might have been for the solicitor general's office to waive its rights to oppose the petition, just let it go. the accord would have denied cert. one of my deputies, michael, whom some of the prosecutors know. he probably no mo knows more abt criminal law than anyone else in the country. he looked at it and although was not written appropriately -- when he also looked at the

underlying papers of what had happened in the district court, he realized there was a meritorious constitutional claim this criminal defendant now in prison had regarding his sentencing. he decided the sentencing was a violation of due process. and so he brought it to me. we ended up writing at the court saying, we did not hash this. we did something wrong at the trial stage, did not catch a that the appellate stage, and realize now this man has a good claim. he should not be in prison right now. we file that with the court. the court accepted that. the court vacated the decision below. i can understand judge, why you think you misled the two courts.

i'm understand how it might put those courts -- if you thought it was so important, why didn't you do first? sometimes you make mistakes and don't catch them for a while. the question is, what the do when you do catch them? we did the right thing. sometimes you're not representing -- you are representing what is right. you were serving as the conscience of the system. so, it was one of the broadest base of my tenure. >> i should say that, keep doing it. if we get it wrong for whatever reason, important thing is to get it right. as far as i'm concerned, keep

doing it. >> i read yesterday your first argument as solicitor general be on september 9 when the hillary clinton campaign financing case is heard again before the supreme court. i'm curious as to how you will prepare for the argument? secondly, what we wear? as the first female solicitor general, what will you wear? >> pants. [laughter] >> how i will prepare -- one pears very thoroughly. so, i will read everything that might be relevant, then read it again. and think hard about the kinds of questions they're likely to throw at me. it is a case being re-argued.

the court has set a particular question, whether two prior presiecedents should be overturned, regarding the pre restrictions that can be placed on the independent expenditures in political campaigns by corporations and labor unions. for many years there have been restrictions on such expenditures. and the federal and many state campaigns. the question the court wants to think about now is whether those restrictions violate the first amendment, contrary to what they have said on a couple of past occasions. it will be an important case for the federal government, and for our democracy. i will read a lot, try to think about every possible question. i will try to think of the answers i could give.

try to come up with the best answer. i will go through several mute courts which is very typical in our office. the quality of representation our office gives is high. one reason is we prepare people better. everybody in the s.g.'s of this that goes before the court has been subjected to two or three mute questions for the rest of the office address questions at them and place different justices. the office knows the supreme court so well that we do a very good job of stimulating with the actual supreme court argument is going to be like. indeed, most save you can get through the mute courts, you are underway. they are harder than the supreme court.

what will i wear? a big question of the washington supreme court bar. it proudly tells you something about the bar. it has garnered so much attention. as you say, the solicitor general has traditionally worn a morning said. there have been women in the office. everyone in the office wears these outfits. there are women and the solicitor general office who have taken a variety of approaches. somewhere in normal close, others having these suits made for them, someone with slacks, some with skirts. so, i have kept it secret. i have ostentatiously get this secret. so i would tell you i would have to she. [laughter]

>> let me ask a follow-up question they would would want me to if he were here. will it include jimmy choo shoes? >> they have too high of the hill for me to wear during oral argument. [laughter] >> before i open up to questions, you clerks -- in many ways are underrated by the passage of time, just as a thurgood marshall himself. he was an incredible advocate for the supreme court. i was fortunate enough when i clerked their to meet justice marshall. in fact, after the poker game,

you may not remember the second time you and i met was one of was visiting one of my former clerks of the supreme court, i think it was paul -- and he walks me around to justice marshall's chambers. in a sweatshirt and blue jeans -- elena kagan pecking away at the electric typewriter. tell us little about the influence justice marshall has had on newyou, your career, let. he was a man who almost cherished the notion of the aw, shucks, i don't know much.

then he would come from left field was something incredibly incisive. anyway, what can you tell us the? >> something about what justice marshall means to me -- this story. there is a tradition in the justice department. i'm looking at rayk and does it well, that when you come into an office you're given a list of portraits of the former attorneys general. you can choose which you want on your wall. but there is a hierarchy. the attorney general chooses first, and that office as a lot of wall space. then the deputy attorney general and you heard from this morning goes next. then i'm not even third. i am fourth. the associate attorney general after that, then the solicitor general. by the time the others had

taken nearly everyone that anybody in this room knows about, i was given the list. i had never heard of anyone on this list. i could go out and research to these people are, and what they did, or just decide in the solicitor general and i should have the portrait of a great solicitor general in my office. so, i went to the photography office of the doj. there was a great photograph of the young justice marshall, one many years and then when i had clerked for him. they blew it up and made a great portrait. >> a black-and-white portrait? with a the hat? >> no, an official portrait. as people have seen a young

justice marshall, he was a wonderfully good looking man. this portrait of him as the only portrait in my office. so, every day i take inspiration from someone -- you are right, he was underestimated as a supreme court justice. as a figure and the old ball a think he was the greatest lawyer of the 20th century by four. if you measure is who has done the most against justice over a lifetime, i don't see how anyone else compares. and you're right, but the time i clerked for him he was an elderly. he turned 80 the year in clerk for him. in some ways he looked 80, acted

80, but was a sharp as it comes. he had a talent you talked about. he could be like oh, i don't know anything. i have just sort of bumbled my way through life. then he did, with questions during the oral argument that pierced to the heart of the case. as there was some talk when sonia sotomayor was nominated, about how little trial court expressed there is on the current court, i was reminded of justice marshall. many of his questions and the way he looked it cases reflected that he was a great trial lawyer. he understood how cases were litigated.

he could sometimes get everyone to think of the case anin all whole different way because of that. >> we have five minutes. if there are questions? >> i am a member of the board of the historical society of the ninth circuit. you mentioned earlier you defend congress in enacting lawless -- in lost have enacted even if the executive branch's try to change them. what thus the three mind when the law you are defending, when signed by the president, he executed a sunny memorandum in which he took great exception to the whole idea of the law. i can i give a specific. but the whole idea of that? >> yes, so the idea of signing

statements and their legitimacy is hot. they have been used by presidents over time by both parties. they became controversial in the bush administration. from my days in the clinton years, another were used frequently then as well. at least for now they are continuing to be used. at least one has been done since president obama took office. in terms of the solicitor general's responsibilities, the question is, is there a law on the books? has it been passed by congress? signed by president?

even if the president has stated certain reservations? if so, the heavy presumption is that we will defend the law. it is not an in variable row. there are some exceptions. if this round in law is changed so that if you look at it is now patently not constitutional, then you have a different set of responsibilities. the other set of exceptions has to do with the role as representative of the president. where there is a statute that interferes with executive prerogatives, the historical practice has been to assert

those executive prerogatives. the practice of the office has been when you have that very dramatic conflict between your obligation to defend statutes and to defend executive prerogatives, you go with the latter. >> judge buffet? >> in a bankruptcy judge in los angeles. from the perspective of the office if you are liberty to tell us, and focusing on the cases as to which the supreme court has already granted cert for 2009, what do you see as the biggest issues from the office's perspective coming up?

>> is the case coming up in september is very important. there are several others that involved the constitutionality of different kinds of federal statutes. we always take them seriously. when we were talking earlier about what criteria i use, one of the most important is if a federal statute has been declared unconstitutional, we nearly always ask for cert on the case immediately. so, there are a number that involve the constitutionality of federal statutes. there's one and balding the accounting oversight board of sarbanes oxley. i think the decision in the

cases to whether certain kinds of governmental structures are constitutional, will be extremely important. another important case is casecomstock, concerning the constitutionality of a federal statute involving several commitment of sexually dangerous persons. there are several others for october. one has to do with the congressional decision to transfer land on which there is a veterans memorial in veterans memoriala cross. another has to do with the statute banning the patience of various forms of animal cruelty. always when there is a federal statute issue, i think it comes

to us as a very important case. a very important patent case this year which involves what types of business practices are possible to patent. the intellectual property barr will look carefully at that. a case may or may not be important to sports fans. it involves the application of the antitrust laws to the nfl. it could be small, but the nfl would like to be large. it could get a license to act as a single entity for all purposes. that will be watched closely by some segments of the bar, and by sports fans. >> and what are the odds in las vegas? [laughter] >> that is what is coming to me

now. oh, there are several important criminal cases, as always. >> one last question. >> i am a lawyer in san diego. it is more than a full-time job. it is also a full-time job for several weeks to prepare for argument. i wonder how you envision deciding how many cases you argue, and how important to personally argue them given the other demands on your time? >> it is one i am still trying to come to terms with. i feel i could definitely have a full-time job. as you say, there is a significant part have not done. we have not talked about all the other things the solicitor general must do. the office supervises all appellate litigation in the u.s.

not only with what we bring to the supreme court, but on the overall -- and i am trying to litigate to my head, but there is not an appeal taken in any court by the u.s. government of which i have not approved. i have to prove every single appeal. i make all decisions with respect to what we're filing amicus briefs on. there's a lot that crosses my desk. then there is this other very visible part of the job. and very time-consuming. it is the actual arguments before the court. i think that solicitors general of the past and i respect that as an important part of the job. the most important cases be argued by the solicitor general.

partly just to signal to the court how important the government believes the cases are. the court has liked the fact that there is a phase of the u.s. government in its core room. it has mattered to the court. on the other hand, i cannot do it all. there are 22 other extraordinary lawyers and the office. they also want the chance to do those arguments. one former solicitor general said to me you will be a hero in the office if you do fewer than i did. so, there are many different dynamics. most in recent memory have done not quite a case each month.

>> well, in light of your incredibly important in busy job, we are particularly honored you chose to join us. thank you for your very informative and entertaining, useful discussion today. >> it is a real pleasure. thank you for inviting me. [applause] >> the president got on the phone and said to me judge, i would like to announce u.s. my selection to be the next associate justice of the u.s.

supreme court. and i said to him, i caught my breath and started to cry -- and said, thank you, mr. president. more through the eyes of those who serve on the supreme court, and through the latest book of c-span with photographs, interviews, with all the justices both active and retired. it is now available in hard cover and as an e-book. >> president obama elena kagan elena this morning. this is the brookings institution. a daylong forum is under way on u.s./china relations. there is a discussion on climate change right now. later today, a panel discussion on north korea and global issues. live coverage picks up at 1245

eastern. -- 12:45 p.m. eastern. >> and on capitol hill the senate gavel's beckon to start the week at 2:00 p.m. eastern. first, an hour of general speeches, then back to the financial regulation bill. the u.s. house returns tomorrow. this week, hr 5116 to reauthorize research and development programs. also, possibly work on a budget resolution and supplemental spending bills for both iraq and afghanistan, and relief in haiti. live coverage here on c-span. >> tonight, a discussion on broadcast frequencies.

the three guests are michael and david, two members of the commerce' s advisory committee on spectrum use. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on tv, rea, and on one. connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e- mail us on c-span.org. >> two hours ago president obama announced elena kagan as his picked to replace john paul stevens. [applause] >> thank you very much. good morning. of the many responsibilities accorded to a president by our constitution, if you are more

weighty, consequential than that of appointing a supreme court justice, particularly one to succeed a giant in the law like justice john paul stevens. for nearly 35 years mr. stevens has stood as an impartial guardian of the law. applying the core by use to the cases and controversies of our time. he has done so with restraint in respect, understanding the job is to interpret, not to make law. but also with fidelity to the constitutional ideal of equal justice for all. he has brought not just mastery of the letter of the law, but an understanding of its impact on lives. he has emerged as a consistent voice of reason, helping colleagues to find common ground on some of the most contentious issues the court has ever faced.

while we cannot presume to replace his wisdom or experience, i have selected a nominee who believe embodies the same excellence, independence, integrity, and passion for the law. and you can ultimately provide the same kind of leadership on the court. our solicitor general, and my friend, elena kagan. [applause] >> elena is what the regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds, and acclaimed legal scholar with the rich

understanding of constitutional law, a former white house aide with a lifelong commitment to public service, and firm grasp of the boundaries between our three branches of government. she is a trail blazing leader. the first woman to serve as dean of harvard law school, and one of the most successful and beloved deans in its history. she is a superb solicitor general. our nations and chief lawyer, representing the interests of the american people before the supreme court. the first woman in that position as well. she has won accolades from observers across the ideological perspective for well-reasoned arguments and commanding presence. she is respected not only for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament. for her openness to a broader review points. her habit, to borrow a phrase, of understanding before disagreeing.

her fair-mindedness, and skill as a consensus-builder. these traits were particularly evident during her tenure as dean. at a time when many believe that harvard faculty had gotten a little one-sided, she sought to recruit prominent conservative scholars and spur a healthy debate on campus. she encouraged students from all backgrounds to respectfully exchange ideas and seek common ground. because she believes as i do -- that exposure to a broader array of perspectives is the foundation but only for a sound legal education, but of a successful life in the law. this appreciation of hurt diversity is my come in handy as a diehard mets fans serving aside her new colleagues to be, the yankees fan, justice at sonia sotomayor. [laughter] while elena had a brilliant

career in academic, her passion for the law is anything but. she has often referred to thurgood marshall for whom she clerked. i understand he reciprocated by calling her "shorty." nonetheless, she credits him with reminding her that i should put it, behind law there are stories. those of people's lives as shaped by the law, as might be changed by the law. that understanding of law not as an intellectual exercise, but as it affects the lives of ordinary people has an amended every step of her career. during her time in this office she has repeatedly defended the rights of shareholders and ordinary citizens against unscrupulous corporations. last year in the united citizens case as she defended bipartisan