has said, its authority is uncertain. it needs to go to congress to clarify its authority. if you're going to clarify the authority, the ggal should be to protect consumers. consumer privacy should be protected, whether it is an issue related to service providers, to search engines, to operating systems, o social networks. the issue of whether or not consumers are able to operate freely on the internet is something that needs to be examined in the context of the new internet ecosystem. the fcc has acknowledged it has no authority over those kind of providers. it is appropriate for congress at this point to come in and update the laws. . .

>> when the former fcc chair called broadband a new national medium, what do you hear and do you agree? >> i agree with that. in a way, it is that inflation of all of the -- conflation of fcc hadsilops s the jurisdiction over, cable, video jurisdiction, telephone services, satellite. ip technology makes it so that you can do voice video over any of these platforms, and it is very encouraging it that the biggest operators are not

slowing their investment and do not plan to, regardless of the regulatory scenario in wireless, because, despite spectrum constraints, more and more companies will try to find the spectrum to offer the band witdh so wireless can become a third option. >> i hear sprint and clearwire and others saying there service is substitutable. and we know that in over 80% of america, consumers have the ccoice between at least two providers, offering no less than 4.5 megabytes. we have a very dynamic marketplace.

it is a that dynamism, that job creation, that economic growth we want to make sure is preserved. >> do agree with reed hunt? >> i absolutely agreed that broadband will be the future. it is the future of job growth, health care, and quality of life, and it will be he dominant information for the information age. >> i have noticed that in your brief, you used the term iap instead of isp. is this an new tactic? to call it an internet access provider instead of internet service provider? >> it confuses folks, because services are what we think of as once you have the connection. is only internet access, only the internet access portion of

broadband that we think the fcc should be concerned with. >> what you think? >> i think it is like trying to save the consumer should have to buy an engine and by the starter separately. or if you buy a car, you by a motor and a carriige. the fact of the matter is, when a consumer wants internet access, they want to be sure that when they plug in a domain name and they will get delivered. they want to make sure they will have a fire wall and spam protection, and the kinds of services he has come to expect as being what the internet is about. >> final word? >> again, our concern is that no private company, and no government including our own,3 its citizens or its customers in terms of their online activities. and because, at this point, i

know sprint and t-mobile offer great wireless service to use your laptop anywhere, but still the concern is that in the big telephone and cable companies do have the ability and the incentive to act as gatekeepers. >> she is the vice president of the computer and communications services association. and we had the president and ceo of the telecom association. as this continues to move through the fcc, we will continue to follow it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> "america on the courts," with a discussion on the supreme court appointment ppocess. after that, the president and republican representative john boehner give weekly redresses.

this week, a discussion on the supreme court appointment mprocess with barbara perry . john roberts makes a brief opening stated. this is about 45 minutes. -- john roberts makes a brief opening statement. >> good evening and welcome. know, are given to some strange language. this is a no-no. [laughter] this pda, ipod, whatever -- off. not on silent but off because it affects the sound system, unfortunately. i am ralph lancaster, the

president of the supreme court historical society, and i am pleased to welcome you to the second in the 2010 silverman lecture series. we have been holding lecture series since 1993, and as most of you know, each lecture series is published by the society in our journal of sspreme court history so that we can preserve significant city be scholarly work we introduce to our memberss these programs are made possible by the generous support of trusties, members, and other major donors. tonight, thanks to the graciousness of the court, this program is being telecast by c-

span and will be reproduced for viewers at a later date. tonight, as always, our programs are hosted by a justice of the supreme court. we could not be in this magnificent room without their gracious support. tonight's post ii justice john roberts -- tonight's host is justice john roberts. he has asked for no extended introduction, because he does not need one, and because i really do not want to risk contempt of court. there will be no extended introduction. however, i would be remiss if i did not say publicly again that long before he ascended to the bench, roberts was a strong supporter of the society. we are now and as we have been for years deeply in his debt for

that support. it is my honor to present to you chief justice john roberts. [applause] >> we had a case involving those devices yesterday. confusion.he would clear up som- good evening. thank you for joining us on this beautiful spring evening for the second lecture in the four-part series on the supreme court and the separation of powers. this series is sponsored by the supreme court historical society. my colleagues and iiappreciate all the society does to improve public understanding. these ectures are just one example of this society's many great programs. tonight, professor barbara perry

will talk about the court justices. it is a timely topic, given the announcement by my colleague justice stevens about his imminent retirement. today is justice stevens' 90th birthday. at 90, when most have long been a couple of decades of retirement, he was on the bench today at my side, not only working but making sure the lawyers appearing before us earn their pay as well. professor barbara perry has a distinguished résume. she is a professor of government at sweet briar college. she is also the director for civic renewal, which works to foster effective citizen engagement to enhancing public understanding of the american constitutional system.

she rrceived herrbachelor's degree at the university of we have full, masters from the university of oxford, and ph.d. from the university of virginia. phen she was at louisville, she visited louis brandeis. professor perry is a prolific author. her works include -- "the michigan affirmative action cases," and jacqueline kennedy, first lady of the new frontier." she served as a fellow at the supreme court from 1994-1995, so this is a homecoming for her. she is working on a volume on the supreme court and the judicial process. please join me in welcoming prof. perry. [applause] nice to meet you. >> thank you, mr. chief justice

for your kind introduction and for pottery us with your when i was here -- for honoring us with your presence. when i was here in 1995, it was equally an honor to serve william rehnquist. my mentor, henry abraham, is here this evening. he taught me everything i know about judicial appointment. his book, now in its fifth edition, is the definitive work on supreme court nominations. i would also like to thank jennifer low and my longtime friends and students and colleagues who have come here this evening, many came all the way from sweet briar college, particularly our dean at jonathan green. somm of you may have heard about a speech givvn across the street t which our resident of a large white house

inadvertently advertise the theme of the historical society's 2010 lecture series by announcing his respect for separation of powers. i must admit that the theory behind it separating government powers tends to make my students' eyes glaze over. evening, of course. no wonder a poll conducted years ago revealed that many americans identified the three branches of government as -- republicans, democrats, and independents. i was serving on the advisory committee on public educatiin and was grateful that the aba's president had chosen to focus -- a separation of powers as its focus. how unfortunate that americans have so little understanding of this crucial element in our constitutional structure. a noted british political author and a furious on separation of

powers affirmed that the fighting government authority accurately -- legislative, judicial, and administrative -- freeeom ordains role, yet government is lost liberty. it is a central road it for the establishment and maintenance of political liberty that thh government be divided into branches. each must be confined to the exercise of its oww function and not be allowed to encroach on the functions of other branches. each of the branches would be a check to the others and no single group of people will be able to control the machinery of the state. political scientists cannot begin a separation of powers discussion and without referring to james madison's federalist paper number 51, where he described the need for what he called the necessary partition of power among the several departments. department was the word he used

for branches of government. madison argued, several of its parts may be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. the father of the constitution explained that the separate and distinct exercise of the powers of government is essential to the preservation of liberty. but each department should have the will of its own and the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. in theory coamo all appointments should flow through the people -- in theory, all appointments should flow to the people. all with the house of representatives is elected by the people, but in practice, some selection procedures would have to deviate from this principle. he said, what he called peculiar qualification, the primary consideration it should be to select that mode of choice that

best secures these second, but he said it because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department must soon destroy all sense of dependence on a 30 conferring them. at the philadelphia convention, the framers of the constitution spend more time discussing the process of judicial selection than the criteria. according to madison's convention notes, the delegates considered appointment of federal judges by the national legislature. james wilson, pennsylvania's representative, opposed the proposal are doing it that intrigued, partiality, and concealment resulted from judicial appointments by legislatures. the primary reason for cceating a single executive, wilson reminded them,,was that one official would be responsible for nominations.

john rutledge of south carolina who chaired tte committee on detailed countered that iraq -- granting so great a power to a single person would cause a person to think we are leaning towards a market. john rutledge would receive two appointments to serve on the supreme court. he resigned as a source it justice before the court convened to except appointment as the chief justice of the south carolina supreme court, thinking it would be more powerful. congress failed to confirm the is a recess appointment in 1795 after he served five months. madison, too, opposed legislative selection of judges. beside the danger of intrigue and partiality, the father of many members were not judges of these reckless set and the qq your qualifications. yet, he did not want the executive to haae tte sole appointment power. according to his notes, madison

it would rather be inclined to give the power of judicial appointment to the senate because its members would be stable and independent to follow their delivered judgments. even of founding father cannot be right all the time. at this point in the early stages of the convention, the first discussions of how to choose members of the national judiciary took place on june 5. benjamin franklin offered an entertaining anecdotes to breaa the tension. he described the scottish met that of allowing the lawyers to describe members of their own profession to sit on the bench. the possibility of dividing the newly selected judges practice among themselves and motivated the scottish lawyers to nominate the most qualified members, who would then have the most lucrative legal practice to divvy up amongst themselves. not a bad idea. midway through the convention, a massachusetts delegate suggested that federal judges to be

appointed by the executive with the advice and consent of the senate. madison proposed a variation. that is, the executive appointment of the jurists with the concurrence of 1/3 of the legislature's upper house. this with your night madison declared the advantage of responsibility in thh executive with the security afforded to the second branch against any corrupt nomination by the executive. in judicial appointments, the convention began moving toward a variation on that theme of separation of powers that included another component of constitutionalism, namely, checks and balances. the branches would not be separate. they would interact in a contrapuntal mode. as medicine rights, to promote the constitution's ratification , the great security against a gradual concentration of the powers in at the same department consists in giving the

administrators of the necessary means to reduce encroachment of others. or as he expressed it, ambition must beemade to counteract ambition. the interest of the men must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. in the waning days of the philadelphia convention, 1787, the delegates settled upon a suggested compromise. through presidential nomination, with appointment contingent upon the senate's prerogative to advise and consent. though madison made reference to these qualifications of judges at the convention, neither he nor his fellow delegates were more specific. there were most certainly not in the document they produced. the u.s. constitution is silent on criteria for selecting members of the supreme court. we can turn to the federalist papers.

alexander hamilton's numberr78+ for some collaboration. hamilton and several comments on the importance of mmrit in the selection process and the necessity of choosing a man who are best qualified for their respective offices. he was hardly more specific than the document he was expanding. integrity and the knowledge of the laws acquired through laborious study -- he of law school in mind -- were his only expressed elements of the general criterion of merit. when jennifer invited me to deliver this talk, the chief asked, how did you know you'd be giving this talk on appointment right when we were in the midst of considering them? i have to say it was purely arbitrary and maybe a tad capricious. i was elated to get the call. i had written and spoken on this topic for years, going back to my dissertation, which was 1/4 of a century ago.

i have read volumes on the roles of the president and senate in court nominations. speaking for the supreme court historical society, at the supreme court, might require speaking about the court. so i inquired of jennifer, is there a particular approach you would like me to take? she responded, well, what role has the court played an appointment? has it been a bystander or an active participant? for a moment my professional life flashed before my eyes in a near-career-death experience. i had been invited to give a talk at the u.s. supreme court with the chief justice and perhaps other important dignitaries in the audience, and i had been given a trick question. the founders had not assigned a role for the court and the appointment of its own members. what a short talk this would be. unfortunately, i did find things i could talk about this evening. as i poodered the question, i

reflecttd on the history of the supreme court nominations. members of the high tribunal instances. the most direct impact that sitting justices have had on nominations has occurred when the suggested nominees to the president, when they suggested them or supported candidates for the court once chosen by the president. now i will refer you to what i am calling your scorecard this is your table i have handed out. it includes historical examples of it sitting justices supporting judiiial nominees from eight in 53 to 1954 -- 1853 to 1954. why these days? after five months of research, 1853 marks the first instance of the court recommending a nominee of the president. successful suggestions.

there were at least twice as many suggestions, about 1/2 of which did not become successful. 1974 is more arbitrary. demarcates the historical society's requested time frame for supreme court history. this is how they define it so it does not overlap with the tenure of current members of the court. the justice stevens' 1975 appointment, and happy birthday, justice stevens. let us take the first category. the 1853 incidents occurred during franklin pierce's administration. in what probably sttll stands as you need action, the entire incumbent membership of the courr wrote to pierce and deputized assisted justices to deliver the support of letters to the president personally. the justices campaigned for campbell and it was

unsuccessful. the president considered no other candidates and the senate approved the nomination. although person at -- personally opposed to seceesion, campbell resigned from the court in 1861 and became assistant secretary of war for the confederacy. president lincoln and kept his own counsel when filling supreme court vacancies, but his first appointment came highly recommended by retiring justice. income and steven field named chase as chief justice in 1864. during president grants administration, two members of the supreme court made it recommendations for filling up pair of vacancies in 1870. justice robert greer had retired in 1871 ... made his services no longer feasible. the vote -- in 1871 when illness

made his services no longer feasible. the hayes presidency indicates another instance of a supreme court nominations suggested by a member of the bridge. when justice strong departed, it was recommended that william woods replace him. stanley matthews, haye's' classmate had been at supported by justice swain. the refuse to take up a vote in renominated james matthews and they confirm him by one vote. after garfield's assassination, chester arthur met with members of the court, who supported

horace gray. the firsttjustice recommended to president grover cleveland melville fomer. fomer recommended john it show field, but he declined. the chief justice went to fuller, whom the press labeled the most obscure man ever nominated. president benjamin harrison took nine months to compile a list of possible nominees and inherited down. david brewer and henny brown. brewer and brown deferred to each other, but president harrison said elected brewer first.

brown returned to the support at six u.s. circuit judge had given him by recommending jackson it to fill the 1893 vacancy created %+ justice lamar's death. jackson's friendship with benjamin harrison from the senate overcame theer partisan differences. nor, did the republican majority delay jackson'')s confirmation despite the lame duck status of the appointing president. let's turn to 20th-century justice louis brandeis had only been on the court of few months when he became one of several high ranking supporters of clark. president woodrow wwlson named clark to run unsuccessfully for the presidency n 1916. not surprisingly, it is a chief justice william howard taft, the

only individual to serve as the head of executive and judicial branches, is among the top two or commanders of nominees to the president. his chief rival in this connest was chief justice warren burger. although most scrawlers a great taft as an average president -- most scholars rate taft an average president, he haa -- his vision and leadership and planning the house for the beloved court are unparalleled. he was an unhappy chief executive, having been persuaded to run for president by theodore roosevelt, who launched a third- party candidacy against him in 1912. it allowed woodrow wilson to win the presidency. as the court's sole former president to have served on the bench, he is the only person

ever to have engineered his own future appointment from the white house. biographers suggesttthat president taft promoted white to the chief opposition rather than juice because the white was only 48 in would probably serve long enough to preclude a future president from appointing taft as a chief justice. president warren harding fulfilled taft highest aspiration to become chief justice. chief justice taft began participating in every presidential decision to fill vacancies on this court. he wrote to george sutherland, i look forward to having you on i know the president intendd to put you there. president harding was happy in on the court. the next court choice, pierce

butler, was his second pick. he first approached john davis, whom he considered to have a sound use despite his democratic party affiliation. davis declined, so taft turned to butler. taft referred to brandeis and oliver wendell holmes is a dangerous to some whom they must prevent from getting control of the court. -- a dangerous twosome whom they must prevent from getting control of the court. successfulr's general wrote, i congratulate you on the president's selection

of pierce butler for the vacancy occurr. taft had worked behind the scenes to attract support from the catholic hierarchy for butlers nomination. although the chief treated and nominees religion as an irrelevancy, with chief justice no catholicand death, 's death, would remain on the bench. the last nomination, edward sanford, attracted taft;''s content. in 1925, he recommended attorney general harlan stone. when holmes stepped off the court in 1932, his colleague justice stone and urged president herbert hoover to name benjamin cardozo. he had pronounced him the

outstanding jurists of our times. in an unsuccessful advocacy of his appointment by calvin coolidge. no justice, stone, offered to resign from the court in case people would object to his becoming the third member of the court by the empire state. hoover relented to the acclaim cardoza received an nominated him in 1932. he would serve only a halffdozen years before his premature death, but he is considered among the greats to have the grace of the nation's highest court. mr. chief justice, i believe i saw a portrait of him in the conference room. he is there. they put franklinnroosevelt in a bind. he wanted to nominate his new deal with tenant, a harvard law prof. felix. but the western states were

without representation on the court since the resignation of joseph mckenna. ought ff, a native of austria, would be perfect. the geographic considerations were beginning to wane as a supreme court criteria. justice stones were among a host of the frankfurter enthusiast, telling him to ignore the geographic and focused on merit alone. he nominated frankfurter in early 1939. one month later, justice brandeis resigned. the two harvard-trained lawyers combined to support a plethora of the progressive policies, but they have fallen out over brandeis's opposition to the court packing scheme. in a personal visit, brandeis

and recommended william douglas. douglas, along with hugo black, advocated the president a selection of wiley rutledge in 1942. roosevelt had packed the court by attrition rather than through his plan to add six seats to the bench. he made one bipartisan nomination. charles evans hughes, the courts leader over the new deal, announced that he was stepping down in 1941. fdr wanted to appoint his attorney general robert jackson. as he delivered it, he spoke with the outgoing chief and the associate justices who urged him to act with dispatch.. he called juice to a white house meeting were he chief declared that justice stones of record gave him first claim on the altar. honor.

roosevelt consulted ustice frankfurter for one more comparison of the stone-jackson candidacy. ff preferred thh attorney general because of their close friendship, but the sitting justice observed -- stone had seniority and to do some experience. an official independent and a new dealer, frankfurter asserted at stone's republican credentials were an asset. is the entry into world war ii seemed a near certainty, frankfurter advised roosevelt that a bipartisan pick for chief justice would serve the president and the court well in the days ahead. fdr advice to jackson that he could inform stone of his approval. stone's nomination met with unanimous acclaim. harlan stone urns another word

-- earns another award. in the three documented illustrations of his suggestions, he recommended a democrat, cardoza, to a republican, hoover. an independent, frankfurter, to a democrat, fdr. and republican tt democrat, president harry truman. chief justice stone added his support for burton, but leaving his senate experience it would serve the court well. -- believing his senate experience would serve the court well. stricken by as a regal hemorrhage while preserving -- presiding over the accord, chief justice stone was replaced by fred vinson. he supported the tom clark, president truman's attorney general in 1949.

i am pleased and privileged to call my friend, the justice tom clark's daughter -- mimi, are you here? there she is. it is wonderful to see you. thank you for being here. justice frankfurter continued his influence as his tenure moved toward its conclusion in the early 1960's. president john f. kennedy told3 bradlee they're replacing frankfurter with another jewish justice was too obvious and keep. nevertheless, he did so in 1962 with oldberg. jfk consulttd about his choice with both justice frankfurter and chief justice of world war in. kennedy's successor and lyndon johnson -- chief justice earl warren.

lyndon johnson looked to sitting justices to affirm his choices. fortis preferred his lucrative practice in washington as well as his partisan support for his friend, lbj. johnson twisted the arms of two rereluctant men. he sent fortis to the high court as associate justice. the jewish seat remained intact. chief justice warren supported johnson's unsuccessful attempt to promote fortis to the center chair. the chief remained on the bench until the new republican president, richard nixon, named warren burger to replace them. in that position, he rivaled chief justice taft for the label most active participant in

presidential selection of justices. during his first months, he received an inquiry from the administration -- could the president discussed supreme court appointments with him? the chief's response? pppropriate. the frustrated president searched for a third nominee who was on number strict constructionist. on nixon's short list was a childhood friend of warren burger, harry blackmun. the chief eagerly endorsed and advocated him. just before the court began its october, 1971, term, nixon faced two openings when hugo black and john marshall, suffering

-pillnesses, retired. chief justice warren burger expressed concern over the cases with only seven justicesg- instead of nine. the chief grew anxious when he discovered the administration had submitted the following names for evaluation it -- herschel friday, mildred -- and robert byrd of west virginia. although it was the first serious consideration of a female candidate, nixon told his attorney general that women should not serve in government because they were erratic and emotional. thank god we do not have any in the cabinet, he exclaimed. riday and lilly fell from obscurity.

chief justice warren burger fired off a confidential letter to the attorney general repeating a previous recommendation that distinguished attorney of lewis powell should be the next nominee. the 64-year-old had asked his consideration. he was no more interested in the position it then he was two years before. president nixon called them and told paul that as his duty to accept the nomination -- powellt the nomination. then the chief justice of telephoned powell. powell found the chief reassuring. when he announced the possibility of going to the high court to his partners in richmond, he was disappointed that no one expressed regret

that he might be leaving. in fact, it occurred to him, that they might be relishing the prospect of carving up his shachair. benjamin franklin had been right about the scottish system of judicial appointments. at least it led to the naming of the best lawyer to the bench. powell represented the finest qualities of the borroar. with mrs. powell in tears --3 alumna -- and i loved her. i was 35 and she would always come up to me and asked if i was a student. it said something about her eyesight or how a looi looked. they called john mitchell and agreed to accept the president's nomination. let's come towards the end.

let's look at patterns of court involvement. the court's early history, based on my research so far, the court involvement in nominations seems primarily to be in a post- colorado phenomena. little evidence points to -- - post-bellum phenomena. why? played aacfactors role. several justices were closer in time to the birth of the constitution and its process for judicial appointments, which created nor formal role for incumbent justices. second, think about institutional rank order among the three branches.3 sent to the court, it could not claim parity with the executive

or legislative branch of the federal government and prestige or power during the first 10 years of the court's assistance, no one, including court members, were impressed with the authority of the federal judiciary. the lack of the buildings symbolized the courts status as the third branch. why would a sitting member of the court recommended the nomination of a colleague to an institution that had so little clout and his duties included the understandably despised role of circuit-writing? presiding in their assigned circuits and living in their home statesstook the justice's far afield from the nation's capital where they might have had the most direct contact with the president. it is more than coincidental that the justices formal role in nomination increased after their circuit riding -- writing ended.

chief justice marshall did not need a temple of justice to create a template of justic,, which increased its influence. a professor has noted that the the chase impeachment was the need for justices to avoid personal involvement in the world of politics. though the senate did not convict justice chase, the indictment must've been dramatic. the court went out of its way to avoid precipitating political attacks, plunging into nomination politics may have seemed a risky business. some brief statistics about the chart you have in front of you. of the 104 successful

appointments, from its establishment of the supreme court, sitting justices or chief justices have had a role in roughly 1/3 or about 27. of those 27, a little more than 1/3, about 10, were supported by chief justice's and more than half of those by two chief justices in particular, taft and burger. they suggested all but one of their nominees to the respective presidents that appointed them to the court center chair. earl warren, a republican, consulted with two presidents who have not appointed him and who were from the opposite party from his appointed president. embraced thearren democraaic party's liberal ideology which became the real politics, as theodore roosevelt

labeled, one's true political colors. wwat what the founders make of this extra-constitutional record? would the framers conclude that it depicts an occasional departures from their debates ooer supreme court appointments or how they described the%+ process in the post-convention period? in a way, recommendation of puprrme court nominees by justices comports with one. point. he focused on the need for federal judges to have peculiar qualification. that is why the people could not select them. rather, the executive withh advice and consent of the senate, would understand and apply the proper criteria. yet, wouldn't incumbent members of this court no better than anyone what qualities their colleagues should possess? i ask the question -- how do justice is recommended by justices rank?

here is the final count. three greats, five near- great, two below average, and two failures. excuse to the qualified side of the ledger. the three grades, supported by sitting justices, constitute 1/4 of the total justices in that highest category. how does such sporadic activity by incumbent justices a square with the tonight's a thetheme - separation of powers? to the extent it potentially compromise is the court's traditional priest the image which places the tribunal above partisan politics, justice's involvement in supreme court nominations may be a gamble they preferred not to take. the trade-off for dependence on the other two branches for appointments is a judicial independence, a treasured

element of the american governmental system. better to remain aloof from the political process for the sake of traditional autonomy. unless a letter is at stake, as in the court packing fight of 1937. mm favorite cut about this institution is from chief justice hughes -- my favorite quote is from chief justice hughes, during the depth of the great depression. he said, the republic indoors and this is the symbol of its faith. if the court has helped preserve the nation, it is the separation of powers that has preserved the supreme court of the united states. make it always be so. thank you very much for your attention this evening. i hope to speak with yyu at the reception. [applause]

>> thank you, professor perry, for what i consider to be a fascinating discussion. and i will publicly express my innocence, because until he began to speak, i had no idea that any justice of this united states supreme court had ever been involved in the political process for the appointment of another. of course, i am sure nobody else was doing this, but i was present court and trying to a mansion-- trying to imagine. i know it is not allowed. given the controversy that as -pevolved and the confirmation process, i am trying to imagine.

-- any member of the court getting involved in that process. thank you, justice roberts, once again, for hosting this evening 's presentation and your continued support of this society. the next lecture in the 2010 series will be next week on the 27th. there are tickets still available. i would refer you to my good friend google. put in supreme court historical society. you will find the website and the number to call to get tickets. and if you are not a member of the society, you can find out how to become a member of the society, and we would dearly welcome you to that connection. shortly, we will adjourn and go into the conference rooms for

refreshments. as i do each time, i invite you to introduce yourselves to the officers and to the members of the staff, our executive director, our assistant director, jennifer, who is in charge of the programs, and the man in charge of our membership. and you can identify as a by these funny things we have hung arounn our necks. if you have not met us, come up and introduce yourselves. we would love to meet you. if you have suggestions for how+ we can improve the service we try to render to the court or the programs we present, we would dearly love to hear from you. thank yoo for coming. we are adjourned. [applause]

>> with a confirmation hearing for supreme court elena kagan coming up, this sunday, c-span takes you inside the upreme court to see the public places. hear directly from the justices is they provide insight about the court, the building, and its history. "the supreme court, home to america's highest court." >> more than a decade ago, congress set up a formula that governs how doctors get paid by the medicare program. theeintent was to slow the growth of medicare costs, but the result was a formula that -phaa proposed cutting payments for america's doctors year after year after year. these are cuts that would not pay, but our seniors' health care. since 2003, congress has acted to prevent these ay cuts from going into effect. these votes were largely bipartisan, and they succeeded when democrats ran congress and when republicans ran congress

which was most of the time. this year, a majority of congress is willing to prevent a pay cut of 21% -- a pay cut that would undoubtedly force some doctors to stop seeing medicare patients altogether. but this time, some senate republicans may even block a vote on this issue. after years of voting to defer these cuts, the other party is now willing to walk away from the needs of our doctors and our seniors. now, i realize that simply kicking these cuts down the road another year is not a long- term solution to this problem. for years, i have said that a system where doctors are left to wonder if they'll get fairly reimbursed makes absolutely no sense. and i am committed to permanently reforming this medicare formula in a way that balances fiscal responsibility with the responsibility we have to doctors and seniors. in addition, we're already taking significant steps to slow the growth of medicare costs through health insurance reform not by targeting doctors and seniors, but by eliminating 50% of the waste, fraud, and

abuse in the system by 2012. this not only strengthens medicaae, it saves taxpayer dollars. i am absolutely willing to take the difficult steps necessary to lower the cost of medicare and put our budget on a more fiscally sustainable path. but i'm not willing to do that by punishing hard-working physicians or the millions of americann who count on medicare. that's just wrong. and that's why in the short- term, congress must act to prevent this pay cut to doctors. if they don't act, doctors will see a 21% cut in their medicare payments this week. this week, doctors will start receiving these lower reimbursements from the that could lead them to stop participating in the medicare program. and that could lead seniors tt lose their doctors. we cannot allow this to happen. we have to fix this problem so that our doctors can get paid for the life-saving services they provide and keep their doors open. we have to fix this problem to keep the promise of medicare for ur seniors so that they get the health care they deserve.

so i urge republicans in the senate to at least allow a majority of senators and congressmen to stop this pay cut. i urge them to stand with america'')s seniors and americ's doctors. thanks. >> i am john boehner. in these tough economic times, american families have done their best to stay afloat -- spending less and working more while mapping out a financially sound future. they deserve that same degree of discipline from their government. instead of bringing fiscal sanity to washington like he promised, the president has spent taxpayer dollars with reckless abandon, refusing to make tough choices and pushing the burden on future generations. now we are all paying the price. unemployment is close to 10%. the private sector is at a near standstill. our small businesses are gasping for air.

having run a small business, i can tell you that the new health care a lot with its tax increases is already stalling these engines of our economy. a new report shows that our fiscal situation is must worst -- much worse than we thought. our debt is on pace to exceed the size of our entire economy by the middle of this decade. at these levels, our debt is a draining enough resources to cost us nearly 1 million jobs. we cannot go on like this. real economic growth requires creating jobs in the private sector. -pto do that, we need to rein in washington's out of control spending spree. less spending, more jobs. it is that simple. economists agree. this week i gave president obama a statement signed by more than 100 urging both parties to cut federal spending.

unfortunately, democrats are busy making backroom deals so they do not have to pass a budget. they would rather keep on spending then sees this critical opportunity to create jobs and boost our economy. everr family knows, in tough times, passing a budget is more important, not less important. president obama has not uttered a word in protest of congressional democrats' failure to produce a budget. even after being presented with these economist pleas for fiscal discipline, he will not press leaders in his own party to fulfill their responsibility to the american people. this is a stunning failure of leadership, that kind of leadership the president provide -- promised to provide. too many in washington forget we work for the people. not the other way around. taxpayers are fed up and they want us to stop spending their hard earned money. that is why through america's speaking out project, america -- republicans pr