capitol. snow expected to blanket washington, d.c., and the mid- atlantic today. this will impact live coverage as organizers have handled some live events due to weather. and senate inouse today for brief sessions. comeouse cummins 4 -- will in for a few minutes at 11:00 eastern. we will have that live on c- span. now, still planning to take you live today to trenton, new jersey were chris christie is not duration ceremony. he will take the oath of office for a second term. whether taking a toll on that organization.

it is scheduled for noon eastern. remarks from the governor. watch it here on c-span. #chat. tweet using the the election administration examining ways upon improving the voting process. jay carney met with reporters at 1:00 eastern. that will be live on c-span. i do see myself as a person trying to understand my family. came to me when i was having a lecturer at the u.s. air force academy in spring.

an air force officer have lots of chats with me. he told me he was a liberal. he wanted to correct any correction i may have had. strange, radical fundamentalists. favor ofme he was in this. people come to the country they should learn the nature of language. ,o i said i quite agree everyone should learn spanish. >> settlement of the united states from a hispanic perspective. this is part of book tv this weekend on c-span two. on life, you will have time to weigh in on the liberty

commitment. and click on book love. >> stephen breyer said it is not a matter of if but when camera should be allowed in the court. he recently spoke with students of the washington center for internships and academic was interviewed by pete williams. this is just over an hour. [applause] >> my pleasure to be here. you're going to talk about congress, and the branch of government that works. [laughter] >> this is flattery. >> let me start out by asking what you did today. it strikes me as unusual, they

had a challenge to the president's recess power. this is something that the supreme court has never had to think about before. here we are 200 plus years into our nation's history. is it surprising that there are still nooks and crannies of the constitution that comes before the supreme court? >> it is not surprising. i have no bone to pick, it is unusual for a father. [laughter] i worked for senator kennedy, and i love doing that, so i am delighted that the school and the kennedy institute are together, on a project that would have been dear to his heart. you're here because you are already successes, and you're interesting in how government works, and you're willing to learn about it. from our point of view, this is

really the right allocation of time because the decisions about the united states are not made in the courts. are there parts of the constitution that we have never considered before, yes. there have only been about two in history that have been experts on the tonnage clause. you have to understand that the courts are not really there to interpret the law, they do interpret the law, but the reason that the courts are there are because people get into arguments. there are billions and billions of arguments, almost all of them settled. you do not get too angry at your friends are going to sit for too

long. you work it out. senator kennedy used to tell his staff to go work it out to that is an attitude that we found, but that is what the courts are therefore, when you cannot do that. no country would work if it were not the case that 99.9% of all disagree with or worked out. if there about money, family, or whatever, you go to a lawyer. the lawyer is supposed to work it out. the usually do, but not always. if they cannot, they are in court, and the court gets settlements, a huge number of them. if they still cannot work it out, maybe they will have a

trial, and some appeals. of those billions of argument, some will come to us to settle. the fact that despite the disagreement of what the correct answer is to this question, they have worked it out. now they have raised a way of working out. >> you get the hard cases. >> you will see this. jefferson may have said one thing, hamilton another thing, they may have had an attorney general for the president. several presidents have said another thing, congress said the opposite. senators of all parties, this morning you get more from one party, and when this president was of a different party, you had the same things from the senators of the opposite party. people switched sides. the critical issue at the moment is that they found an area that is concrete, definite, and they can disagree about it. were these particular appointments proper? what does this mean?

what does may have been mean? we heard that argued, there are all kinds of complexities, and eventually we had to decide. >> when you're looking at the closer to should provide to answer a question like this -- at the constitution, to answer a question like this, the lower courts have provided an opinion too. would you have to decide a purpose of a provision in the constitution, which you will have to do in this case, how do you know what the founding fathers had in mind?

>> that is a good question. let me show you something that is true of the constitution, and also of an ordinary statute. you have some words. the question is how do those words apply? how shall they be interpreted? how do we apply them in this case or that? i go to the opposite extreme, i can give you an example that has nothing to do with the law. i discovered in france a news story. edit said there was a high school teacher on a training he was carrying, in a basket, 20 live snails. he taught biology, and he was going to show them to the class. it was not his lunch. the conductor said you had to i a ticket for the snails, and he said what? and it says read what the tariff says.

no one may bring animals and a basket, or they have to buy ticket. >> they were talking about cats and dogs. >> they were talking about animals. is a snail in animal? >> oh. whether you're talking about the appointments clause, when you talk about the freedom of speech, which is not explain itself, whether high or low, whether detailed or not, virtually every judge almost always uses the same asic tools to try to find the answer to a difficult question. one, you read the text. if it says animal, one thing we know for certain is it is not a carrot because the carrot is not an animal, no matter what.

the text put on limits. they do look at the history, where did this phrase come from of what was the history of the statute? third, you look at tradition. suppose a sense of the about habeas corpus. there is a tradition that surrounds those words. fourth, you look at the precedent, there are earlier cases that have some relevance. somebody had an objective in putting that word in the statute. what was the purpose? six, look at consequences of deciding one way or another in the light of the purpose. if you are looking at the first amendment, that is the cobwebs of speech.

the fourth amendment is consequent as of privacy. all judges use posix tools, but judges very in the emphasis that the give one or the other. i probably give more weight to the purpose and the consequence. my fellow judge would take into account the history, and i would give the language. the tradition, the precedent, that is the same with this case today. that is why people -- do i look at history? look at the second amendment. guns. with the basic purpose -- i could not figure out the basic turbos, without looking at

history. we got into a detailed discussion, and they will look into more history than i am willing to. >> this was the supreme court decision in 2008. for the first time in our nation history, the supreme court said what the second amendment means. you talk about history, the court is divided 5-4, so history does not always provide the answer? >> some judges on our court thought that the second amendment but which says a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state about right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. here's what it is about. when they passed the constitution, madison and hamilton, they wanted that document, which they knew was a

good one, to be ratified. but there were people around causing trouble. it was a close question. one of the arguments that they raised was that we have just bought a war of independence. state militias were part of the revolutionary army. the first article to the constitution says that congress can call up the state militias and regulate them. how do we know that congress will not do it and destroy the state militias? fear not, said madison and hamilton, we will pass a bill of rights, the second amendment will stop congress from calling them up.

now this -- if that is what this is about, it is a great historical interest, very little practical fell you -- value. it was atrophic argument, but only -- a terrific argument, but only for people accepted it. five people believed that it was about the people, in both cases we are looking at history. when you apply, you still have to apply it in light of her process, in light of what is going to be the practical result, and what the content of that second amendment is. very open, it is not in decided by our court. >> sometimes you have to fill in the blanks. sometimes your deciding what it means. consider the case the supreme court said about the constitution that says anyone

who wants to be elected to congress has to be a u.s. citizen, have to live in the state of tennessee, and then try to enact term limits -- of candidacy, and then try to enact term limits. >> this case reminds me a little bit of that one. is term limits constitutional? let's look at the text. it says a -- can arkansas say that its members of congress can serve no more than two terms, or for terms -- four terms? the text says you have to be 25 years old, and the an american citizen, and be a citizen of the state from which you come. the qualification is can you add another qualification?

what did the founders say? jefferson said monday, madison said another. they said opposite things. pretty typical. let's look at consequences, purposes. can you not add qualifications? they added a property qualification? case they you cannot be a lunatic? [laughter] clearly not. it is ready evenly balanced. if you read the opinion, they said we could not add one. the 10th amendment reserves the power to the state and what power, and how strongly should that be interpreted? if those in congress are elected state officials -- well, wait, they are technically a federal official, but they are state official -- and it is the emphasis that you put.

there are no real answers to a lot of these questions. we are going with the answer that we think is right. these questions are very close, and there's just no obviously correct answer.

in your profession it is awfully tempting to say there's good and there's bad, and there's right and there's wrong. that is not how it looks. >> or in my profession, more likely to say liberal and conservative. >> correct. >> how do you avoid deciding a case based on how you would like it to come out? if you cannot base it on history, purpose, or consequence, how you a sit on say -- how do you avoid saying i think this is the way it should be? >> i never get to do what i want. [laughter] there is as much of that internal feeling because -- if i were to ask you honestly, what do you think controls these close questions, most of you will write down politics. the members of the junior varsity politicians, but i say no. the reason being, why do we have

the power to make a decision that what the elected branches of government did violate the constitution? some think that john marshall made it up, but he did not. if you look at the histories of the time, the vast majority of the people in the convention thought that the judges would have that power. why? hamilton explains it, he says we have written a beautiful document. it is neat, compact, and has lasted a long time.

in the federalist 56, hamilton says this is a beautiful document, but if somebody does not have to -- the power to say when the branches of government have gone too far, set boundaries and guidelines, let's hang up in a museum. beautiful people can admire it, but put it in the smithsonian -- except it wasn't there yet. you have to have somebody, who? the president? too much power. if he can do everything he can do, and say this in the constitution or not, that it is too much. congress? it is a democracy? he writes in effect, he says

congress will do it and do it all right as long as the popular answer. they are experts in popularity, they know popularity. if they didn't, they would not be where they are. this document gives the same rights to the least popular to the most popular. so we better not give this to a group of people who are really persuaded by what is popular too much of time according to hamilton, to do this job. the judges. why the judges? they are grey, nobody knows them, it is a legal job, and they will not be persuaded by popularity. the do not have the power of the purse, and the do not have the power of the sword.

so they will be careful. that is basically what he says. if we wanted to decide politically we're really flying in the face of what the level that hamilton wants -- in the face of what hamilton wanted, the only explanation i have ever seen of that is from a political perspective he would rent a civil war. it probably helped created. judges are terrible politicians. very few of them have been elected to anything. we don't have the capacity, and it is not the job.

i eight hours on this one, because i will -- i do not think people decide politics, real politics is where are the votes? who is going to get elected? i think i could convince you of that, -- you mean ideology? are you a marxist? a free enterprise are? if i catch myself think i am -- thinking i am doing it because it fits into some ideological world, i know it is wrong. there is a third thing, i am who i am. i went to stanford, i am from california. i tried that test that the new york times has, and it is a dialect test that tells you where you are from. two of the city for fresno and

bakersfield. i grew up in california. it is pretty good. my point is that i have the background i have. most of us have certain views about our profession at it. the global -- at a philosophical level. where do we all fit in, how does law fit in? when you get to these great big open constitutional questions, i think that that plays a role. what is the freedom of speech? 14th amendment. equal protection of the laws. no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. by the time they reached the supreme court, there are good arguments of both sides, most of the time.

a person's background, how they see the law, how they developed over time, it does have an impact. it cannot be avoided, and i do not think it is wrong. that is one reason why these terms last a long time. different presidents with different views appoint different people. now any president who thinks that he is going to get the decisions he always wants. surely wrong. teddy roosevelt appointed wendell holmes. he ended up deciding in the wrong way in an antitrust case. they may have more luck at a deep philosophical level. even then they do not always get

the one they want. san francisco, i was born and grew up in. i lived in cambridge, massachusetts an awful lot of times. i have seen a lot of disagreements, but i did not know what one was until i came here. i wish those people agree with me more. over time, i thought, it is a big country. there are a lot of different points of view. we have 310 million people. they think every race, religion, point of view possible. well, it is not so bad that you have courts with it and points of view, based at that level of philosophic philosophy or different basic approaches. it is ok. and i am not always in the minority. it shifts a lot. when i am, it is a miraculous thing.

i see it every day. there is a miraculous thing still that these 310 million people have decided to resolve their differences under the law. it was not always that way. it only took us a few horrors like the civil war, slavery, 80 years of legal segregation. the country has not always been on a great track. but with the ups and downs, this rule of law has arrived, and it is a tremendous advantage to our country. i talked to student audiences. i like talking to student audiences, as you can see. i said, the remarkable thing about bush v. gore, which often comes up, i heard senator reid say, the remarkable thing never is remarked upon.

despite tremendous disagreement, very important case, affects a lot of people, and this important matter decided by unelected authorities, and by the way, judges are human. and they are sometimes wrong. i thought they were in that case. i suspect senator reid thought so, too. not popular. at least 50% thought it was wrong. maybe more. nonetheless, they followed it. no guns. no riots in the street. fabulous. i know my studio audience will say, i am sure 20% of you are thinking, too bad there were not riots. really? turn on the television set and see how countries are when they resolve their problems that way.

>> let me ask you one more before we invite questions from the students. there was a recent study that showed only 50% of americans could identify john roberts as chief justice, more than two thirds could name a judge on "american idol you have said the constitution's democracy assumes that we understand how the government works. this audience is clearly an exception, but are you worried that schools no longer teach civics and government as much as they once did and we are building a population that does not understand how the government works? >> yes. i follow sandra o'connor, who is always talking about this, as is justice kennedy.

we talk about it all the time. ask anyone in public life, members of congress. they would not be in public life if, at some level, they thought the government was important. i do not have to tell you that, because you are here. but of course, generally, i cannot tell people your age what to do. i cannot. they would not do it anyway. i cannot tell them what to do. i hope they will find someone to love, i hope that they have a career that they can practice, and i hope they will devote some of their life to civic affairs, which at any level -- library commissioner -- many different levels to participate in political life. of course, i believe that strongly. i cannot tell you what to do but i have become more familiar with this document, and i can fill you, if you do not, the document will not work. it assumes a basic knowledge and understanding of how the government works. it assumes knowledge of the fact

that the document itself -- we are looked the border patrol. it creates borders, but the decisions of how your community, state, how the nation will work, what kind of country, city, what kind of town you want, it leads to you, the democratic process. we cannot decide those things. of course you have to participate. i found a good quotation that i will use some time. he was talking about athens, it century bc. in a funeral oration he says why athens is so great. democracy, etc. very few people participate but still better a few than none. he says, what do we say in athens about a man who does not participate in public life? we do not say there is a man who

mind his own business. we say there is a man that has no business here. that is what the document said. >> very good. we have a long line of questions from both sides of the room. we will start here. >> john graves, harvard extension. i was going to ask you first, if you have ever presided over a case that you knew you got it wrong. i think you alluded to the fact that that was possible. rather, i would ask, have you ever voted against your conscious to uphold the law? >> if you really have a tremendously strong conscientious objective, and you could not do it, you should not

take the job. what i was confirmed, i was asked the question, how do you feel about the death penalty? by said if i was against it so much on moral grounds that i could not read myself to follow what the law is, at that time 20 so i would like the job and i hope you will confirm me. i do not think it is so terrible that i could not bring myself to vote against. that is far as i went. when you say a matter of conscience, i voted in many cases where i would have far preferred the result to be the opposite. i voted in many cases where i would say, i cannot believe this, but the mixture of morale and he and other things in that, i do not separate out. >> the law is supposed to work on moral ground.

the criminal is supposed to punish those people who deserve to be punished. it does not always work out. then you have to take into account the need to have laws that are not perfect and people not being perfect. >> jordan, university of san diego. we briefly touched upon term limits. i wonder if you thought there were any negative aspects to lifetime appointment for supreme court justices? >> yes, there are. as far as i can see, it would be just as good, and may be preferable, from an individual judge's point of view, if it were long-term. 18 years. the term would have to be long. would have to be long. when you do not want from the public interest review -- point of view is, what is my next job? not a good idea. i would actually prefer if it were a fairly lengthy term of years for a lot of reasons. nonetheless, it is not. the constitution says term for good behavior. >> thank you. >> quinnipiac. given the recent surge of social media covering trials and events, is there any thought to opening up supreme court

arguments to the public via media? >> we are a conservative law in that respect, small c. you say, why are you so conservative? after all, the written press is there, why not television? the concerns are, first of all, it is a symbol of our court. if we let it in, it may be in all criminal cases. that is a problem. people testify where they will be seen by their neighbors, jurors, etc. another problem is people will think the oral argument is what it is about.

99% is really briefs. and then another problem. we are deciding -- people relate to people they know more than those they do not know. they relate to people they see more than those they read about. there will be a good guy and a bad guy. that is risky for the court because we are deciding things for the 310 million people who are not in that courtroom. that is the rule of law. and then of course, as i am honest about it, people worry about the demonizing or the angel-izing of people you see.

we do not know. my own answer to this is experience will build up. i suspect eventually it will be there. it is a question of when. >> hofstra university. could you speak more about what led to the supreme court decision in bush v. gore? >> what can i say? there were lengthy opinions. people thought it through and they came to different conclusions. i can add one thing, which i have said quite a lot. before i came to my own conclusion about it, i had to ask myself this question. what i come out the same way? after all, i was appointed by president clinton and vice president gore may have had something to do with it. i have met him. i thought, would i decide the same case the same way if everything were the same and the names were reversed? i had to come to the conclusion that i would. when i said this at stanford i added, truthfully, people are

great self caterers. you do not always know you have an answer to that question, but you try. i am not sorry the way that i voted, but i am sure that each of my colleagues went through some version of that. and you have to. you do not know that you are always getting that right, the answer to that question, but you know you can try. and you know your colleagues tried. that is the best i can do. >> my name is alexis. i am from juniata college.

pennsylvania attorney general kathleen kane announced she would not defend pennsylvania's defense of marriage act in the pennsylvania constitution in a court of law eerie because she believed the law was unconstitutional and morally wrong. what is your opinion on that? >> i can give an opinion on her decision, not the opinion. i cannot give an opinion to your question because it is an issue that might come in front of us. the reason for that, first, there is an ethical problem with it. underlying that is something that is really practical. when you have a party and you have your friends expressing opinion, i sometimes do that, too. then you have to make a decision

for real. when you have to make that decision for real, before you do that, and believe me, there will be a lot of briefs in that case, on both sides, and we read them. it is my life, reading and writing. i told my son, if you do your homework well, you can do homework the rest of your life. sometimes it turns out that what you first expressed as your cocktail party view is not what your view is. when the decision israel for anybody, all of a sudden, it makes a difference, and you focus and you think about it hard. that is why i cannot answer your question. >> michael arthur, stanford university. in light of recent cases like citizens united, do you believe the supreme court is tending to dispense justice or fairness in the american system? >> you mean do i agree with citizens united? i agree with the dissent. it is not such an easy argument as sometimes you might read in the press. i do not want you to believe this argument, but i want you to see what it is. it does say congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of

speech. i know you can say campaign contributions our money, not speech. but you try to express your views politically without money in a political campaign. may as well lock yourself in a closet. political speech is protected by the first amendment, perhaps first and foremost, and you cannot speak without money.

but congress does not deprive you of money, just regulates it. well, perhaps our greatest judge said, do not get into the business, talking to judges, of trying to tell people when too much money is too much. people will pass laws on that and they will be really protecting themselves and their jobs. it is a risky thing for judges to get into that. my position is we have to do that. as i voted to strike down a campaign law in vermont that limited x editors, i think $100, i said, is that all you can contribute? now i am in the business. i think there are other arguments on the other side. i think there are important arguments on the other side, such as the need not to give everyone some kind of voice and not to drown out the people who have less money. they have a right, too. the need for people to think that congress is not just responding to money but responding to opinions that the first amendment is there to protect, i think there are some good arguments on my side, too. but i do not want you to think it is all one-sided. >> my name is ryan navarro from juniata college. what has been the most controversial case at the

supreme court during your time on the bench? >> you would know better than me. what do you think? >> the second amendment case was controversial, so was health care, and bush v. gore. >> those are good answers. >> those of you out there with cases like that, bring them. we love those cases. >> good evening, justice. a pleasure to have you with us. i am from suffolk university. your book is widely regarded as a direct response to justice scalia's book. i was wondering how much truth there is to that and moreover, how do you reconcile with someone who you have such a fundamental difference in constitutional interpretation with? >> on a personal basis, we are friends. the relations among the judges are fine.

we have lunch together. i can remember once we had really tough ones in the conference just before lunch. 5-4 one way, 5-4 the other way. i said to chief justice rehnquist -- we are having lunch, enjoy each other's company, and 45 minutes -- he said yes, you had four members of the court thinking the five others were out of their mind. the discussions and conferences are professional. i have never heard a voice raised in anger in that conference. you go around the table. it is a good point for people, what ever you are in. you start getting emotional about something, and you discredit your argument.

particularly for lawyers. be careful. you have a point, you are trying to get across a point of view or a set of arguments to see how people react. calm helps. >> what about the book? >> i did not write it necessarily to be a response. i wrote that particular book because -- probably i had to give some lectures. the real point is, i read this interesting essay by a french thinker. he made this distinction which i have always read. isaiah berlin made a distinction between positive and negative liberties. he looked at that in the context and said that positive liberty was a bad thing. rousseau had that idea, that it led to fascism. constante said the greek idea of dividing sovereign power among

the people -- who were not women or slaves then -- but the citizens of athens shared a sovereign power. they would decide together how the country should be conducted. that basic idea of democracy is what he calls positive liberty. negative liberty is simply freedom from the state telling you what to do. both have desirable aspects. i thought a whole lot of what i do in the court, and the notion of positive liberty is tremendously helpful because it suggests a need for participation, that the government is you. it is not us versus them.

where did that idea come from? in my life, in high school, if you grew up in san francisco in the 1950s, you would have it strong. i think this is a helpful idea. i wanted to explain that idea in that book. >> my name is kimberly. i go to juniata college. i was wondering how you-based decisions where there is no text or history or tradition? >> there is going to be a text. contrary to what you see as first-year law students, in the court, statutory, we consider regulations, federal statutes, and the constitution, so there will be some text. very hard to think of a case where there is no text. what i tend to do more is, i say, there are some words here.

somebody wrote them. if they come out of congress, the person who wrote those words had some kind of view, even if you never spoke to the senator, that it would not displease the senator that he works for. the person who wrote this had some idea. it did not spring from nowhere. what was that idea, what were they trying to do with those words, what was the purpose, will this interpretation, as opposed to that, will it further that purpose or will it hinder the purpose? those are not always determinative, but they are usually helpful. >> good evening. i attend suffolk university. thank you for taking time to speak to us today. i was wondering, do you believe citizens united will be overturned sometime in the future? >> who knows?

the tendency is rarely to overturn an earlier case. citizens united, you see, is about -- the case itself is about corporations and labor unions independently spending their money without coordination of a candidate in the last few months of a campaign to buy time on television that seem to be for or against a candidate. now, wealthy people, very wealthy people, billionaires, from both parties, can do that anyway, and they do. there is no law that forbids a wealthy person from doing it. the real question in the case is, it in a world where wealthy individuals can do this, could labor unions and corporations also do this? i thought the answer to that question is no. congress has the power to

regulate that. five people thought it was yes. but note how i framed the question. sort of a narrow issue, isn't it? you see, i'm trying to show you something. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am from the harvard extension school. i am sure you would already agree, but in a country that has enforced legal segregation and slavery, purpose and consequence as a extensive history to prove they should carry the most weight. if you can disclose, is there discord between the judges about what should be valued more, and in terms of hierarchy importance the six pillars you had mentioned in terms of making a decision. >> not too much. justice scalia and i have on several occasions spoken to audiences together. we spoke to a large student audience in lubbock, texas.

it is always interesting to me. i hope it is interesting to him. we discuss these things. senator leahy was chairman of the senate judiciary committee and asked us to come to talk about it to the committee. you had quite a few people there, senators from both parties, and they asked substantive questions and did not make it into some kind of clinically oriented thing. we sort of talk to them about this. i thought there were good questions, good discussions, very substantive. now he has taken that and made tapes and shows it in schools in vermont. so we get some discussion. >> to expand on that question, when you are voting together for the first time, you are not saying i think the text takes me here, the history takes me here,

it is much quicker than that. >> the way the conference works, we will hear these cases. for example, today, tomorrow, wednesday. procedure is more important in the court then you think. you have to decide. that is the job. so we get all the briefs from the case two weeks before. i will read those briefs but i will divide the 12 for the oral arguments session, which is two weeks alone. monday, tuesday wednesday. thursday we are supposed to be thinking and friday we are in conference. i will divide them among my law clerks, i have four. you each read three sets and you better know it better than i do.

then i will have a discussion with them. i will talk about what they should write as a memo, things i want answered. then we will have another discussion. by the time of oral arguments, i have read the briefs, my law clerks have read it, i have talked to her, i have talked to them, i have a memo, i have read it, so the questions are ones that we think we know the argument. we do not 20 or hear more of these basic arguments. we were there really to ask questions. that helps much more than people think. it forces you. it is amazing. it forces you to get your thoughts. in the day before the conference, you are thinking, i will have to say something in this conference. what am i going to say? >> in the conference it is just

united. >> yes, just the justices in the morning. we discussed the case. we each have a book for each case. it has the name of the other justices and places to write. the first thing that happens is the chief justice says, the issue in this case is this and that. my view is. it is sustained, probably five minutes. my view is this and that. i would vote to affirm or reverse. i have the essence of what he is inking. then it goes to justice scalia, and that justice kennedy, justice thomas, justice ginsburg, me, justice alito, justice sotomayor, and justice kagan. each of us will take note of what the others say. nobody speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. that is a very good rule in any small group. everybody feels they have gotten a fair chance. then there will be back-and-

forth discussions. probably a little bit more with chief justice roberts then with red whisks -- rehnquist. the point of the discussion, and the point of what i have said is not to say that i have a better argument. there are hundreds of arguments. it is what i think. the reason why i am waiting in this direction is -- and it better be truthful. that is why they are in private. i do not have to worry about what i am saying, i can try things on. there is some discussion back and forth. on the basis of that, people would cast a tentative vote, but it is less tentative than it would have been the day before. and it is less tentative than it would have been before the oral arguments. on the basis of that, the chief justice will assign someone to be the rapporteur. he is much more constrained in that.

everybody gets one case before they get two. by the way, half of our cases are unanimous. where they are 5-4, i learned how to get it assigned to me. i was the longest-serving junior justice in history almost. i could get it assigned to me. here is how. it breaks down 4-4. how do i get it to me, which i certainly did not want. i said, i am not sure. they have to assign it to me. that will determine the outcome. i better be more certain than that. nonetheless, he has to try to get the court, do it by the numbers, and that he has some discretion. then we sit down, we write, i get my law clerk to write a long draft or memo, and then i will go read it.

i will sit down and then write my draft. i often say, i know you think yours was better. then she will go in give me another draft, and i will probably do another draft. i was a law professor. i am picky. then we go back and forth and get a draft and circulate it. i hope i pick up before you are more votes. if i do that, it is the opinion of the court. i am always willing to change, even when i have the majority. when i have the majority signed up, i am a little less willing. nonetheless, somebody may write a dissent or concurrence. eventually everyone either joined or writes his own. and the opinion comes out. it is mechanical. that plays a role.

>> my name is alexis from juniata college. my question is in regards to your view on education. last week, we discussed how approximately only two percent of the national budget is spent on education. how do you feel about the amount of money that goes to public education and what you feel we could do to improve the public education system if we were allotted more money to do so? >> i declare my bias. this is my father's watch. it says irving breyer, legal advisor, san francisco unified school district, 1933-1973. i grew up with the public schools. obviously, i cannot think of anything more important.

there are a lot of very good schools, and a lot that are not so good. those that are not, i am really startled. of course, i do not have the answer. when i listen to experts in the and when i listen to experts in the field, they say nobody really has the answer. the principal and the headmaster, that makes a difference, and there are all kinds of things. experiment, try it. see what works. franklin roosevelt said that. he said, try something. if it doesn't work, try something else. but of course, we should. in many places, they are. i cannot think of anything more important. we all know that money alone doesn't do it, but it does help. i tend to agree with where you're coming from. -- >> goodvening for

evening. you mentioned you have a process with which you make decisions and sometimes the decisions are very challenging. which case have you decided on that was, by far, the most difficult? >> there is one rule. nobody speaks twice. everybody speaks one. another unwritten rule is that tomorrow is another day. you and i, we are both on the court and we are the greatest allies in case one. the fact that we are allies, it may be -- it has nothing to do with case two. we may be mortal enemies on case two. we are on to the next one. i have had some terrible times on some difficult cases. i tend to drive them out of my memory. was one where i had to decide something in kansas. kansas had some kind of rule mental illness in prisons

and what they could do and so forth. i was thinking it was a violation of the expos factor caused -- clause. here is how the psychology works. you have a difficult decision to make. not concerning your self. i mean, who knows, once our own ego gets into it. but not concerning yourself. you will think this is very difficult. but i have asked business people and they say it works the same way. my goodness, this is difficult. you go back and forth and then you decide. you have to decide. you decide. day, do you think, oh, that was so difficult and i should have decided differently e no, -- differently? no, you think, that was very difficult, but i'm glad i

decided the way i did. two weeks after that, i'm glad i decided the way i did. two months after that, how right i was. that is the way the human mind works. click this will have to be the last question, -- >> this will have to be the last question, please. a supremetion is, as court justice where you have to make very difficult decisions, what is it about the judicial system where many people may see it as flawed or broken that you love so much? >> it is a good job, being a lawyer. every buddy has views on things. being a lawyer or a judge, you have to bring your mind to work as well as your heart. individuals or helping communities, trying to be helpful, but doing it in a particular way. think,hat combination, i of head and heart that i think

makes law of great interest to people. as far as the courts are concerned, probably the primary characteristic is what i said before, a rule of law. i get this question so often. judgesa group of african -- where was it? there was a group from togo, i think, and from different places. and a woman from ghana who was the president of the supreme court of ghana. and they the same question. they say, why do people do what you say? it is very hard to answer. you have to look at history. they don't always. and they haven't always. think of the history we have been through. i mean, think of little rock where we have a governor in my lifetime, standing in the

schoolhouse doors, saying those children will not come into this white school and integrate. and then you had a president called the 101st airborne out. they were the heroes of world war ii, and those children were taken into the school. and that was not the end of it. a year later they closed the school. but it began a series of things like the freedom marchers, martin luther king, and all sorts of things. what i say to people is do not talk to the lawyers. do not confine your discussion of the rule of law to lawyers. contrary to popular belief, there are 310 million americans who are not lawyers. it is the fact that they support this rule of law that is the tremendous asset to our country. go out to villages. convince people why it is a desirable thing to have a group of judges who are human and can make mistakes decide things that will make a difference to your

life and could be very unpopular. that is hard to do. but we have this asset in our country. not perfect, but it is there. we participate in a system that can transmit that from generation to generation, and allow so many people to live together without killing each other. that is a wonderful thing. and it is probably that which i see -- as you can see, i feel this. it is probably that that i see as the major virtue of these courts, and it is the rule of law. >> thank you all for your questions. justice breyer, thank you very much. [applause] >> if you could, maybe indulge us -- a colleague of mr. williams recommended that, justice, you might enjoy the

opportunity in this situation to ask mr. williams a question. >> [laughter] i hope when you can do is use your influence. can you keep the professional journalists at work in the supreme court? >> i certainly hope so. as one, i would like to continue doing it. the news media is changing rapidly. where people get their information is changing so fast. i learned the other day, we have a website, nbcnews.com. most people find stories on that website not by going to it, but by what is passed along to them by their friends in social media, or what they find in a blog. what we find more and more is our audience is not coming to us, we have to go to our audience. those of you in this room, you

probably do not watch television or read a newspaper as much as justice breyer and i did when we were growing up. the news media are changing because of that. what we cover, government, the supreme court, is till -- is still tremendously important, still an enormous amount of interest. one last anecdote. when the supreme court decided the case, the website scotusblog got over a million hits that day. there is enormous interest in the court. it is a great institution to cover and i love every day that i am there. thank you. [applause] >> on behalf of the washington center, edward kennedy institute for the senate, students and -- for the study of the senate, and i thank all of our students and faculty here, thank you for a wonderful evening. as a token of our appreciation,

a fashionable washington center tote bag, guaranteed to hold many pounds of legal brief. [applause] thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> and at the supreme court some held out in determining legislative districts. be inurt is expected to session again tomorrow. meant -- much of the government shutdown because of the snowfall in the mid-atlantic. the house does dabble in in about 20 minutes. brieflysenate came in as well today. some news from the senate side. senator said he

, davidn for governor fitter. he will be able to run for governor without forfeiting his current senate seat. the statement obtained by associated press, david fitter said "i believe as our next governor i can have a bigger impact in addressing the challenges and opportunities we have in louisiana." bobby jindal is unable to seek reelection due to the states term limits. jersey, chris christie will be inaugurated for his second term today. we will bring you live coverage. the swearing-in is set for noon eastern. remarks from the governor at 12:05 p.m. online have an conversation and facebook and at tag #c-sing the hash span chat.

the difference between the vice president's wife and the president's wife is huge. the vice president's wife can say anything and nobody cares. the minute you say one thing as presidents wife, you have made the news. that was a lesson i had to learn. very quickly. >> watch our program on first lady barbara bush at www.c- span.org/firstladies. or see it saturday at noon eastern. and our series continues with hillary clinton. chris jersey governor christie coming up at 11:30 a.m. eastern. atually, the house pro forma 11:30 a.m., eastern and chris christie at noon eastern. until the house comes in, discussion from this mornings "washington journal" on campaign finance. -- host: melanie sloan is

back at our table. let me show you the tweet from citizens united this morning. it says, today marks the fourth anniversary of our victory for free speech at the supreme court. i would say it marks the victory of anonymous money funneled into our clinical system for political ads. what have you seen since the 2010 decision? we have seen more and more money going into the political system, most of it anonymous. there are organizations called socialfour's which are welfare organizations, which were started initially in order to promote social welfare. but now what we have seen our political people crave -- --ating these 501(c) four

with very innocuous names, things for you have no idea who is really behind them. and they are funding nasty political ads, very destructive within our political system, and with no idea who is funding all of this. host: explain what the supreme court decided. guest: what the supreme court's wasded in citizens united based on an older case, buckley versus let -- vallejo where it said that corporations had the right to free speech, basically. while in the past, there has been a ban on corporate treasury funds and union funds being spent and even to candidates directly, that was struck down. -- i'm sorry, not giving to innovate directly, but soft money was struck down.

we are the things that seeing now were actually already legal before citizens united. it really opened the floodgates, though. it changed the impression about what you could and could not do within the electoral system. groupsere some of these previous two citizens united, but there was a whole start on funding. now we are seeing organizations, what we call super packs in the wake of citizens united. candidates have not just their own campaign committees anymore, but also the candidate to visit -- specific super packs, which are allegedly supposed to be independent and not coordinate with each other. and we generally have staff that are very close themselves and it is hard to say they are not coordinating. one of the things we have seen

in all of this is both that the candidates and party committees have less control over the message than they did before citizens united, because there is all this money where you can start all of these groups and say whatever you want. reason.com had five ways citizens united makes politics better. they said that not too long ago, as recently as 2008, the only non-anointed candidate for paint -- for president was her percentage of ron paul.

it is a more competitive process with citizens united. guest: but really, that is not true. both of those men were in the race because they each had one incredibly rich supporter. those single donors, those two candidates would not have been able to stay in the race. and previously before citizens united, candidates who did not have widespread support would not be able to stay in the race. but we are talking about more speech, -- more speech for corporations,nd but the fast numbers, far less speech. and having people like them staying in the race. said that it has allowed interest group to break free from party dependency. even occupy wall street could form its own super pack.

citizens united, by underscoring a right to pool resources for political expression made it easier for americans to engage the political process. guest: i think i would buy some of that little more if it was not for most of the people funding the political process now trying to stay anonymous. we really have no idea who is behind many of these candidates. americans cannot put the ads they see into context. if you knew, for example, that exxon was funding in ad against a certain regulation, you might view that very differently than another. you: what is being done by and other groups to try to overturn -- overturn or get new laws on the books in the case of citizens united versus the sec? guest: there is a lot going on at once. there is a group pushing hard for a constitutional amendment

to say that corporations, for example, don't have free speech rights, that corporations are not people. it is a big thing that has come up as result of citizens united. we had something called the disclose act, which had widespread support from democrats am a not much support from republicans, that would require more disclosure about the donors to these kind of funds. and then people are looking at different kinds of areas to work in, for example, a recent lawsuit filed against aetna. it is a major insurance company that claimed it was revealing on itsitical miniatures political contribution reports that they post on their website. many of thety, contributions they were making were not included. aree are other people who pushing with the ftc to change regulations so that shareholders would have the right to know about political contributions. host: on the constitutional amendment, here is people for

american way. they are part of a group that says 16 states and around 500 citizens house have called for mm and to overturn the citizens united decision. called for an amendment to overturn the citizens united decision. , eightthe third metric ways to help overturn citizens united. lobbying groups that plan to get a lobbying dayd on capitol hill today. let's get to phone calls. manchester, connecticut, independent collar, alec, you are first. go ahead. caller: good morning. i love the show. recently, with the freedom of information act request, there -- there was information that 9/11 was not hit by a plane.

attorney dr. william pepper has written to the department of commerce demanding accountability over this, would you be willing to read his letter and consider having your organization review this issue? leesville free to send us a letter and we will certainly take a look. -- please feel free to send us the letter and we will certainly take a look. host: is that something that you look at, or is it mostly money in politics? money in is mostly politics, but we also look at information at the government might not want to share. republican. caller: your guest is so left wing. you should have another guest to balance this. host: stay tuned. we will. caller: you have had three liberals on in a row. this woman is so far left wing,

it is unbelievable. everything she says is probably very questionable because she supports unions, supports obama. that is all she cares about. she doesn't care about any republican -- she wants republican groups investigated. host: let's get a response. do you support democrats? are you liberal? do you only go after republicans? onst: we have taken politicians on both sides of the aisle that have had ethical ethicalill stop -- issues. that is something we are concerned about across the board. in massachusetts. caller: my name is ralph. i live in massachusetts. i definitely think that met -- that melanie sloan is exactly right. is that we have to

realize, democrat or republican -- i mean, let's face it. that is really a lot of baloney right now. and i think democrats and republicans should realize citizens united is very impressive in the last four years. that is fundamental. liberties,f our main to do what melanie sloan has been saying on tv. i really agree with it. host: all right. guest: thank you for your remarks. one of the things that is challenging is to convey to all americans how much money in politics affects them. the fact is, no matter what issue you care about today, whether it is to the loans, health care, economy, banking, every one of those is impacted by the incredible amount of money that is anonymous men --

anonymously flowing in dark places. we need to make this a priority issue. host: i want to show you the financial times this morning. democratic lawmakers urge to hone their moneymaking skills. every few months, democratic members of congress receive a report from the committees saying how much my they have raised. recently, these lengthy documents contain the next her column that another -- a number of members have said they have never seen before. they are rating their fundraising on a new point system. one congressman says this -- here is a quotation from george miller, a california democrat who is going to rick tyer. -- going to retire.

guest: that is exactly right. and i think it is actually on the low -- low end. you spend at least that. from theaising money people who want something from you. part of the problem now is that after citizens united, we know how much money and who the donors are two candidate campaign committees. when there are these anonymous , we do not know and we do not know what the candidate may be trading in order to get that support. host: senate majority leader tom daschle, a democrat, said this -- guest: right, and it will be more if you are in a very high cost media market like new york, california, philadelphia.

this is a major problem. and most politicians are pretty unhappy about it. they do not want to be spending most of their time raising money. and if they are spending most of their time raising money, then they are not spending their time effectively representing us and whirring about the issues that people need them to worry about. we have a lot of challenges in our country. the average cost of a --host: the average cost of a winning campaign in the house was 640 thousand dollars 1998 and $1.6 million in 2012. for a senate seat, 4.8 million dollars in 2002. $12 million in 2012. this seems like it has gone up no matter what. even before the citizens united before the fcc decision. -- the sec decision. guest: it absolutely was going up. there were more and more creative ways that people were spending money on elections. one of the benefits in all this are politicals -- political

consultants that have gotten very rich. it is something we need to recognize we need to get under control. last presidential campaign was basically a $1 billion campaign and it seems like money can be spent on more important things than vitriolic television ads. in -- ne viewer writes guest: i think the problem is not a super pack at, but the donor does not know who is behind that super pack add. americans are worried about their school and work day and other problems. we are not analyzing the ad and what we know about them and what we should worry about. host: good morning, tom. caller: i just want to say, every year, millions and billions of dollars are spent by these leftists super pacs

trying to elect democrats and read -- and defeat republicans. and since your guest seems to think that money doesn't have anything to do with speech, i was wondering if she would agree to limit the spending -- the spending to all of these leftists super pacs that i mentioned to maybe $100,000 a year to produce their products and paid their employees. not superse are packs. they are media organizations and the rules are very different for them. not the biggest problem we have out there. at least in those, the donors are named. the biggest problems we have are these vital once he4 (c)4nization -- 501 organization's. but because of mishandling by the irs, anonymous money has

been funding our campaigns. host: in new jersey, independent collar. caller: good morning. it is nothing new. the chances of a rich man going no. heaven, the richer you get, the less you care about small people. we know that money is tied to politics. rich donors, billionaires, only donate money for a cause that benefits their cause and their pockets. when you talk about the middle class being separated, at the expense of them believing in some of what the politicians sold them out. in the last, you are to be poor. there will be no middle class. it is called craft, conflict, and control. we have been blind for many years. we have never been able to see what the rich and politicians have been doing moving forward. this country is in for a bad set.

as for christy, the money he did , 100ive to trenton something million dollars, we had to lay off 112 police officers. a record year of murders in trenton, new jersey. follow the money. y e just like he held the money back from hoboken -- why? just like he held the money back from hoboken. certainly, there is always an element of political payback in politics and politicians who are elected can take out their anger against people who did not support them. and obviously, that is a problem and chris christie is under investigation federally for exactly that now. i think that is a positive thing and we will see what comes of that. know,jim wants to melanie, would you be satisfied if donor names were required to be released? with that help the uninformed voter to decide? guest: that would help

tremendously. and in citizens united, the case talked about the need for disclosure and how it would help a great deal. but despite the fact that there is still language about disclosure, we see people like the senate minority -- >> you can follow this conversation at our video library at www.c-span.org. we will take you live now to the house floor for a brief pro forma session. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 21, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable luke messer to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication from the sergeant at arms. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of

representatives, sir, as you are aware, the time previously appointed for the next meeting of the house is 1:00 p.m. on tuesday, january 21, 2014. this is to notify you pursuant to clause 12-c of rule 1 of an imminent impairment of the place of reconvening at this time. it is due to the weather. signed sincerely, sergeant at arm. the speaker pro tempore: under clause 12-c, the speaker established this time for reconvening and notified members accordingly. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. god of life, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the members of this people's house, our home with family and taking time to meet with constituents, our nation has paused to remember a period of america's history when the

ideals of our founding documents were put to the test and the new era of greater rights for all citizens emerged. we thank you for the greatness of those times and the individuals who toiled and suffered to call on a betterselves for our people. may we remain vigilant for the ghts of many seem still in jeopardy. in these days, as well, many people come to the capitol as so many did 50 years ago to make their voices heard about another major issue affecting our nation. may your spirit of truth and justice dissend upon all who are exercising one of the great freedoms our nation stands for, to peaceably assemble and make known our concerns to government. may all that is done this day be done for your greater honor and glory.

men. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 4 h an of house ruent 458, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. -- pursuant to section 4-a of house resolution 458, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the house will lead the house in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. pursuant to clause 12-c of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair.

monday. you can see that lies on c-span and -- live on c-span and c- span2. >> i do see myself as a person trying to understand myself. the idea came to me for the book when i was giving some lectures at the u.s. air force academy in colorado springs. nice well-very educated, broad-minded, liberal wasg air force officers looking after me and had lots of

chats with me. and he told me he was a liberal. correct in my mind any impression i got from the media that the u.s. air force academy is very pugnacious lee radical,g and full of biblical fundamentalists. afraid of he was immigration. when people came to this country, they should speak the native language. quite agree.i everybody should learn spanish. but this is part of book tv this weekend on c-span two. an online at booktv tv's book love. -- book club. the website and click on

the chat room. >> first of all, i was not elected. it did not make that much difference. i did notice the difference between being the vice president's wife and the president's wife. it is huge, because the vice president's wife can say anything. nobody cares. the minute you wait -- you say one thing as the president's wife, you have made the news. that was a lesson i had to learn pretty quickly. our program on first lady barbara bush at our website /firstladies,.org or see it saturday at 7 p.m. eastern. and live monday, our series continues with first lady hillary clinton. weand next year on c-span, take you live to trenton, new jersey. this is the patriot theater at the trenton war memorial.

we are live for the inauguration of governor chris christie. ♪

♪

[applause] >> good morning. i am the cochairman of the inauguration, along with my partner, todd kristi.

i want to thank you for braving the elements to join us this morning. myi was driving down here, job this morning is to introduce our master of ceremonies, as you can see by your program. i appreciate you breathing the elements to join us this morning. i was driving down here, the master of ceremonies and i were, telephoning and texting back and forth among making sure one of us will be here. i want the record to show i beat him. when chris christie and i were practicing law for many moons ago in cranford, new jersey. was a lawney, there -- a young lawyer at the end of the hall who was always there before we got there and always there when we left. it is a great lesson to you young warriors out there. the lawyer at the end of the hall went on to be an assistant u.s. attorney, general counsel to the governor to my attorney general of the state of new jersey, and is now the former united states senator for the

state of new jersey. it is my honor to introduce our master of ceremonies today, the honorable jeff ta's. [applause] >> good morning, everybody, and thank you, bill, but you did not beat me by much. 80s and gentlemen, thank you for being here today. -- ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here today. it is my honor to look at new to the inauguration of governor crist christy and the lieutenant governor. governor chris christie and the lieutenant governor. it is my pleasure to introduce to the state, lieutenant governor and his family. [applause]

and now, ladies and gentlemen, before you sit down -- [laughter] would you please join me in welcoming governor chris christie and the kristi family? tie family? [applause]

[applause]

[applause]

>> to introduce the pledge of allegiance, it is my pleasure to welcome the president of the new jersey state senate, senate president, steve swinney. [applause] >> governor, a heartfelt congratulations and i get the honor of calling up the governor's youngest daughter bridget to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. bridget? [applause] >> [all together] i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it

stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> good afternoon. i am the speaker of the general assembly and i want to welcome you today to trenton, for governor chris christie's inauguration. it is with my distinct honor i announced the playing of the national anthem by the 63rd army band. plays] ♪nal anthem" lay

♪ banner"] ♪ngled [applause] >> everyone can be seated. i would like to call up the

governor's son, patrick christie . [applause] >> good afternoon. many miss patrick christie and i have the honor of introducing the former headmaster of the joe barton school. please join me in welcoming him to deliver the invocation. [applause] , patrick, by tell that applause that your dad got, that he is loved. let us now bow our heads and pray for god's blessing. lord, we gather today to ask your blessings on our governor, lieutenant governor, senators, and members of the assembly,

jurists, and all citizens of this great state of new jersey. whosk your blessings on all serve the common good for the people of this state. lord, with the author of the first book of kings to give your servants and andrstanding mind -- understanding mind to govern people, able to discern between good and evil, and to deuce -- to seek justice and peace and security. we ask your blessings on all who govern and protect us, and all who serve us in any way in public office. we ask your blessings on all gathered here. on our families, on the christie family and on all families in this state. and lord, we ask her blessings on those most phone verbal, and on all the children -- most

vulnerable, and on all the children of this world. may the lord bless you and keep you. may the lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. may the lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. amen. >> please, be seated. it is now my honor to introduce stuart radnor, the chief justice of the supreme court of the state of new jersey, who will administer the oath of office to governor christie. [applause]

>> i, chris christie, elected governor of the state of new jersey do solemnly promise and swear that i will support the constitution of the united and the constitution of the state of new jersey, and that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the united states and in the state under the authority of the diligently, will ,aithfully, impartially, justly and to the best of my knowledge and ability execute the set office -- the said office in conformity with the powers i willed to me, and that to the utmost of my skill and

ability promote the peace and prosperity, and maintain the ,awful rights of the said state so help me god. repeats] istie congratulations. [applause] [cannons fire] [applause]

♪ "stars and stripes forever"] ♪ [applause] >> congratulations, governor.

now the lieutenant governor for filling her jewelry roll as the new jersey secretary of state will present chris christie with the state seal of new jersey. lieutenant governor. [applause] [applause] >> good afternoon. i am con cain junior, the minority leader of the -- tom kane junior, the minority leader of the new jersey senate. and it is my honor to administer the oath -- to introduce the chief justice justice who will administer the oath of office.

[applause] do solemnlyidano swear that i will support the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of new jersey and that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to the governments established in the united states, and in this state. under the authority of the people. and that i will faithfully, , and justly perform all the duties of the office of lieutenanter