-- community banks are what drives the ability for agriculture producers to reply -- to rely upon that. to receive their financial support. thet of focus has to be on overregulation, the over taxation that comes out of washington, dc. the american entre nor, whether they are a farmer or , wel mom-and-pop company overtax and over regulate.

addressing those -- i think you can do it in a speedy way, expeditious way. we did it in the 12th largest economy in the world, in the state of texas. we cut the tax burden. we passed the most sweeping requirement in the nation. which requires for health care opportunities and the access of desk access to health care to explode. we can do this. it is just a matter of having someone who has the experience of doing it. the reason why tell you to show me don't tell me election. a lot of people are going to stand up and tell you what they're going to do. i don't. i want people to take a look at what we have done in the state of texas. all the way down to putting policies into place to make this country more competitive. that foren engaged in

the last 14 years. >> this country has a high incarceration rate, would you .ake any changes back up perry: the 12th largest economy in the world. we are the same size as canada or australia. we had a huge prison population, big prison buildup in the early 90's when we saw federal, mandatory sentencing laws were cramming a lot of young, nonviolent, drug-related offenses into our prisons. number one, we are costing a lot of money and we are destroying lives. excuses't to make any for the activities they were involved with. they broke the law.

his destroying their life, by throwing them into prison for a long time the answer? i had a democrat judge from dallas, texas, come to me in governor, and said, thick about this. he laid it out to me and it made sense. we're putting people into prison for a long time costing a huge amount of money. there was an alternative. drug court -- drug course. a republican controlled house and senate at that point in time, and this is not a partisan issue, this is a commonsense issue. was in a short eight-year. of time -- a short eight-year period of time. we saved $2 billion of taxpayer

money. it is also allowing people a second chance. this country is already -- has always been about second chances. at the federal level i think you can do the same thing. states need to compete against each other. your study to see other states on thexas's lead criminal justice reforms making a difference. there is being smart on how you deal with whether it is criminal justice or taxes. is what i think americans are looking for, in washington will not be the epicenter of that. duty to be a repository of best practices? yeah, but washington needs to these all that power back to the states. let the states compete against each other. whether it is social issues or

economic issues, america will be stronger and happier.

-- this is a classic example of persecution by a very democrat-controlled county. the legislature took away all of the authority from them as far as legislative sessions. on its face, the former dean of pepperdine law school and other president of baylor university wrote a column in the last week saying what the world are these charges still hanging around on governor perry for? every person who has a modicum of understanding about the constitution and the laws --

i veto legislation. that is what governors do. we negotiate with legislators, and without process is over with -- and when that process is over with, we make a decision whether or not we will send money or a program forward. again, i just want to reiterate i wear this as a badge of honor for standing up against an out-of-control official that had oversight on state elected officials in texas that was absolutely abhorrent in her actions against law enforcement individuals that are in custody and jail. i would not spend a dime of texas taxpayer money, i would not let a dime money go to that. >> how the state in the race and be competitive when you do not have money? best --kh: we had the : we had the best week

of fundraising last week that we had since june. i think most of you are making too much ado about the story. i am in iowa. i will be in south carolina at the end of the week. i will be back in iowa again. there are people who can keep a pretty small footprint. i am one of them. >> you are not going anywhere? mr. perry: i am going a lot of places. [laughter] >> and comments on governor walker's plan on repealing obamacare? do you think the strategy makes sense? mr. perry: i have not looked at it. you'll hear a lot of people say the right things. repeal and replace obamacare. we have been seeing that for a long time. obviously, i believe the states are where the decisions need to be made, not in washington, dc the entire idea that washington can come up with a way to deliver health care that is effective and efficient for new york versus new mexico versus washington, this is not common sense. let the people in the country

decide. in the state of texas, we don't consider it to be effective, and we do not judge success by how many people can be forced into insurance. what we think in texas is the more people that have access to the best holiday health care you can't, that is why we had the most sweeping reform in the nation. our people in the state of texas -- if you want to live in a place that has really high taxes and health care being substantially restricted, go live in that state. that is the beauty of the 10th amendment. anybody that would rather pick washington over the state will allow them to do that. >> you hear people responding

[inaudible] perry: the campaign is about ideas. the campaign is about solutions. that is why -- all these people -- here is what i will tell you and here is what i got. border control is a great example of that. the security of the border is a great example of that. we have dealt with this. we know how to secure a border. let's just build a wall may be good political rhetoric but the focus is on how will you secure the border? i think a better way is to put the personnel on the border in the right places with the right numbers. you have a border that has the proper security and fencing in place, most likely in the metropolitan area. the most important aspect of this is the aviation aspect. they can fly from tijuana to el paso and is an incredibly long

border. with the technology we have today, identify activities that are clearly illegal or suspicious and quickly responding at that point in time. we know how to secure the border. border, a secure the lot of these issues go away. >> trump and walker say that is the wrong approach. mr. perry: i am saying there is a better way. the question you need to be asking is a really good investigative reporter is how long will it take? how much will it cost? what will you do about the tunnels under it? there are a handful of questions that come up. nobody has dealt with this issue more than i have. 14 years as a governor with a state that has a 1200 mile border with mexico, and we have been dealing with this since the mid to thousands.

>> [indiscernible] -- esther perry: i say lay it out and use common sense about which one of these can happen quicker, which one is more effective. if you just build a wall and do not have the other aspects, that all you have done is spent a lot of time and money. >> do you need both? mr. perry: we have both if you think about it. when you have personnel, aviation out there, that is a virtual wall. if that is what they are talking about, then easily that out and not just say we need a wall. that is like open change. open change probably meant something different for you than it did for her. building a wall means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. let's be specific about how we deal with it. as governor, i do not have the opportunity to be nonspecific. i had to have answers to the challenges. i had to have answers for the

space shuttle disintegrating, for the masses coming in from louisiana katrina, for dealing with a federal government that failed to secure the border in texas. that is why i asked people to really take a look. do you want the person leading this country to have a record of dealing with real challenges and how they are going to respond to them, or do you want to have somebody that talks about ideas? >> would your plan include building a wall? or not? perry: what do you mean by wall? you are falling in the trap. tell me what your wall is. tell me how long it is going to take and how much it will cost. how long does it take to build a wall? >> i have no idea. mr. perry: me neither. that is the point. until you get down to the individuals, what are you talking about?

americans are looking for solutions. americans are tired of rhetoric. they are tired of washington saying they will do something and that they don't. that's what's going on in this country today. i have laid out clearly a way to secure the border with personnel, with strategic fencing, with aviation assets. it will secure the border. thank you all. we are out of here. all of the microphones. i didn't answer that back over there. [indiscernible]

>> they love you governor. answer questions.

but you are going for president and you will not answer my question? why will you not answer my question? i live in texas. >> i think she will give us some area here. -- give us some air here. governor, that was your message out here. what do you want the iowan voters to remember from your speech today? mr. perry: i want them to know that there are people out there with successful records in public service that have a lot to give to this country. washington is broken. we are mad at washington. some of us have been fighting washington for a long time with success i might add. having a president of the united

states that respects the constitution and fifth amendment and believes the best days of this country are ahead of us. let the states be the laboratory of democracy. you focus on the things you should be focusing on in washington, like a strong military, like having our borders secure, and everything else will work its way out. people will figure out where they want to live. fear and theto the real distrust going on in washington, dc. i think the american people deserve a president who will reflect that. >> on immigration issue, you have been with you on the border

and have more experience. what i want to know is what would you do immediately to deal with immigration? mr. perry: you have to secure the border. everything goes back to that. all the discussions we have , whether it is the idea you get rid of the 14th amendment or you do this, and almost back to here -- thee are all symptoms impact on public schools and health care and these are symptoms of the problem. the problem is a poor border. i do not know why washington does not have a desire and will to secure the border. we know how to do this. i think the best way is to put the personnel in the right places, have strategic fencing in the metropolitan areas, but then aviation assets that will

go from tijuana to el paso using technology that will identify what is going on and a fast response team that will go in and stop it. that is how you secure the border. at that particular point in time. we start to see these other issues melting away. >> the issue of a birthright citizenship, and is now whether anyone likes it or not debate. mr. perry: then let's have a debate. how long has it been since we have changed the constitution of the united states? back in the early 1990's. it took 202 years to get the amendment. the question is who will quickly address the problem?

is the problem people coming into the united states and having children in turn for american citizenship? yes. what is the best way to take care of them? i would suggest stop them from ever coming in illegally. build that security on the border with aviation assets and , the personnel and the fencing. >> is there anyway you could support the ending or suspending of birthright citizenship? mr. perry: that is not the issue. the issue is how we address people coming here and taking advantage of the 14th amendment. i will let the legal people and lawyers have the conversation about what happens if you do away with the 14th amendment, but i have to live with reality. reality is it takes years or decades, and i do not have much time. i do not think america is that much time.

i think you need to secure the border. if you secure the border, you'll solve the problems. >> i will press you one last time. perry: quit trying to deflect off of the biggest challenge we have dealing with all of this immigration issue, and that is securing the border. if you do not get the border secure, you are wasting the time of the american people. that is what they want to see done. >> fair enough. i am not done on this issue, i don't want to belabor the point. it seems that this issue is dividing the pack of candidates. you are on one side of the other of the note unintended offense -- no pun intended defense. mr. perry: here is where i went. -- land. i want to secure the border.

i have been doing with it for the 14 years i was governor. americans want people who will find solutions, i am their guy. i will not talk about it. i am going to do it. >> thank you, governor. mr. perry: thank you everyone. >> how are you? >> it is all good. >> mr. governor, i want to get a picture with you. >> you are looking good in maroon. [indiscernible] >> we are going to turn to the right. [indiscernible]

>> you going to make your way down? it is on the left side. make it big and bold. [indiscernible] >> thank you for your support. mr. perry: thank you. >> thank you so much. you ran into my son. [indiscernible]

>> let me borrow that. >> thank you. >> can i get a photo with you? >> on the count of three. 1, 2, 3. there we go.

[indiscernible] >> that is our arena football team. mr. perry: come here, girl. go, on the count of three. 1, 2, 3. perry: that is the second largest port outside of new york city. a huge inland port. expanding it is going to be a

real challenge. [indiscernible] perry: i was talking to the executive director and he was there two weeks ago on the agricultural side and one of those bridges is for agriculture import and export. that old bridge it is a wooden bridge. concrete and steel because it burns. [indiscernible] mr. perry: the whole concept of

trade back and forth is a real challenge. a real challenge. >> they made it a one-way street. issue is we have the drug cartels and we are only inspecting 2%. we are inspecting more than that, but are only catching 2%. what is the technology we need to use to speed that process up and help guys like you be able to move your trucks? that is a real challenge. >> good luck mr. perry. >> good luck. >> did we get our picture? mr. perry: what's that?

[indiscernible] >> good luck. mr. perry: did we get our picture? >> not yet. mr. perry got it. [laughter] >> we have a mutual friend. rob. .e wanted me to tell you hi mr. perry: we are 70 miles east. >> i have a house in austin and the house of here and i came up here when i do you were coming

to the fair. mr. perry: rob's daughter went to school with our son. >> or really? >> it was a little 7-eleven or something. mr. perry: there is another place up north. you know where high park cafe is? mr. perry: yeah. >> next to the laundromat. mr. perry: if you want to have some really good mexican food, go there. i think rob has some great restaurants. >> all these awesome. mr. perry: the reason i got to

-- there iswe live a sam brown. >> the cleaner? mr. perry: the cleaner. myself and a couple guys lived there. driving by getting a little breakfast. >> he wanted me to ask you about a time you went to the restaurant with ted nugent. perry: we used to take people there on a regular basis back when i was a governor. [laughter] where is your camera? >> ok.

that's good. >> thank you. thank you. good luck. >> on the count of three. 1, 2, 3. >> get your horns up. >> gig 'em. [laughter] >> 1, 2, 3. mr. perry: >> longhorns and aggies. >> i will tell rob you said hi. good luck. >> whether it is coal or wind or ethanol -- [indiscernible]

>> a quick picture, mr. governor. [indiscernible] mr. perry: i think you need to look at all of washington. all agencies that are too big.

i can promise you i can sit down with the agricultural department and we can have more streamlined fashion to serve the people of this country. it is just a really big , cumbersome, costly government i do put a dozen other initials in front of it. washington is too big, too corrupt and too intrusive. it is not responding to what american people want. something and making it work are two different things.

i think the easy thing to say is get rid of it. [indiscernible] epa and its repository of best practices. [indiscernible] ozone levels are about 23%. carbon dioxide levels are about 9%. we did all that without the federal government. regulation. we did it. we are the number one wind energy producing state in the nation. those reductions came at a time

when we were growing than any other state in the nation. largest refining in the country. substantial conditions to produce ozone. someone said your air is going to be dirty. it is not 30. that's it is not dirty. it is cleaner. -- it is not dirty, it is cleaner. examples, are some criminal justice reform. core of this is a country where the states are supposed to be a laboratory for democracy. let them do it.

[indiscernible] >> how much do you bring in, do you know? food?t is your favorite mr. perry: workshops. -- pork chops. [indiscernible] >> thank you very much. no problem. >> hold a sign-up.

on the count of three. one: 2:3. -- 1, 2, 3. >> what are you going to -- what are you going to do for the farmers? insurance? like water, floods? mr. perry: you know where i'm from? >> texas. mr. perry: where do it -- where did i grow up? >> down by the border. perry: i know how wet can be , but also know how dry it can be. >> how are we going to take care of our crops? perry: [indiscernible]

do you think there's anybody that is running for president that knows more than i do? >> i do not. has been: mike spence to understand what an agriculture producer does -- my experience has been to understand what an agricultural reduce or does. whether it's the way our seed gets dealt with. federal debtorhe whether how the federal government decides how it is >> -- o deal -- exide >> thank you. >> this is my daughter.

>> you doing all right? >> yeah. >> we also have an honored veterans program, governor. [indiscernible] >> i think he is giving a speech today. [indiscernible] is your favorite artists or band performing at the grandstand? mr. perry: should we go back and it's again?

-- should we go back and do this again? it -- i wantname to let my knife -- i want to let my wife name it. >> loosen the button at the bottom. >> which banded you vote for? mr. perry: reba. band or attraction? where do we go? >> we have a new program where you honor veterans. >> pleasure to meet you. thank you. >> if we go right over, it is

right here. say hi?ou mr. perry: that is a big tractor you've got. you make it make noise? >> i made it! i listen to your speech. -- i listened to your speech. mr. perry: it was a cold day. we needed to warm it up a bit. >> good to see you. mr. perry: who are you?

ali?urly -- perry: kind of look like -- [indiscernible] >> all-girls. you.erry: thank >> good luck. >> good morning. [indiscernible] >> ok. ok. mr. perry: i'm enjoining like you -- i am enjoying it like you.

[indiscernible] >> i will vote for you again. mr. perry: thank you, brother. [indiscernible] >> go to the right. [indiscernible] >> went to high school with me.

[indiscernible] >> mike. [indiscernible] >> i have a disabled veteran right here. >> air force pilot. >> i know who he is. mr. perry: thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> did you spend much time in non--- spend much time in nam? >> not at all.

>> real lucky. perry: i understand. thank you. you look after this man? >> yeah. mr. perry: how are you? what you ride? >> harley. mr. perry: were you at the ride we had on the sixth of june? >> nice to meet you. mr. perry: i have the iowa allergies. too. have those

>> we need a quick photo of you with the americans for prosperity gang. >> i'm going to see you later. [indiscernible] >> get in here. [indiscernible] >> ok. all right.

ok. three: 2:1. smile. perry: you know karen? >> hi. [indiscernible] mr. perry: thanks for helping. >> you bet. mr. perry: are you all going to be there? you. are counting on [laughter] [indiscernible] perry: are you in the reserves now?

at --ill be >> he is not a one of the anymore. >> i will. [indiscernible] >> might thing is my family came from aixa:. -- my family came from mexico.

perry: you had this real increase. when 9/11 happened, we were like wait a minute. here so how don you secure the border? >> i love what you did. [indiscernible] mr. perry: were you in germany?

you. [indiscernible] >> there you go. >> thanks very much. good luck. [indiscernible] >> how are you? i don't know how often they had it. [indiscernible]

>> yes, you did. [indiscernible] >> how old is she now it? -- how old is she now? yeah, they are. [indiscernible] >> i always introduce it by the dogs name. [indiscernible] last two: we spent the hours here.

>> look at you. awesome, i love it. i am on the board. mr. perry: the qe2 is there. was that iowa where roosevelt of the alternate? -- roosevelt took the altar. let me know what i can do to help. >> thank you. [indiscernible] perry: can i take a picture echo come here. lucy and i are going to have her picture taken.

[laughter] >> not a good idea. mr. perry: did you get? >> yeah, i got it. we are good. >> you want a coloring book? mr. perry: yeah. i can answer that one. [indiscernible]

>> ready, set, go. ready, set, go. 1, 2, 3. contest.: you win the your fingernails. >> oh my gosh. thank you for noticing. [indiscernible] that is what our group is about. mr. perry: these he question is mean?t you really >> all of his money power in washington. mr. perry: you dissolve the

power. you get back to a president the but the states be the laboratory. you adjust that in the state. -- you address that in the state. that is the most practical way to do it. >> think you so much. >> can i get a picture? mr. perry: he has a lot of money. >> 1, 2, 3.

>> what did they teach you? [indiscernible] >> is it art history? >> he is a painting major. mr. perry: the meadows institute -- they have an art gallery there. the other day, bob jones, i went to visit the art collection. -- they started collecting them right after world war ii.

they have an amazing collection. outside of the louvre, it is the largest collection of art in the world. it's in south carolina. anderson, thornburg area. about that. >> hi. you were governor when i was still down there. my mom still lives down there. i am in dallas. mr. perry: my grandbaby lives in dallas. that's it -- that's a good thing. >> i want to go back. mr. perry: are these your's? >> these are my two youngest.

lily and tyler. my other three boys. see, everything is tall in texas. mr. perry: how old are you? >> 16. >> and he just turned 14. mr. perry: do you have a camera? >> yes. >> on the count of three. >> say texas. >> yes to move in. you're so big, i have a hard time getting you in there. one: 2:3 -- 1, 2, 3. >> j. j a wide. why.

thank you so much. go ahead and build the wall. thank you, sir. [indiscernible] >> i voted for you. [indiscernible] >> on the count of three. one, 2, 3. >> nice to meet you here in iowa. [laughter] >> i did pictures with you for years ago. >> give her that camera right there.

avyain? how are you baby girl? >> thank you. [indiscernible] she is not here today.

[indiscernible] name.t is a good man's >> can you take a picture with us? thank you. you. >> have a good one. thank you. >> i saw you the last time around.

this is a campaign stop for you, but this is actually what you love, right? people.e being around agriculture and the it is that much more enjoyable. there are two things they are concerned about. and their personal states. they know we can do better. they don't understand why we are supposed to accept 2% growth. when they turned the tv on and a isilhings like

countrysides, they outright murder, they are theyiting americans realize we have a border that is not controlled. they are uncomfortable about what is going on. but the other side of it is, middle america is pretty optimistic. leader.w we need a from my perspective, i think if down ande time to sit talk to the average person, they want to see a leader that has confidence. ,he are confident in leading

you will do well. i ask everyone to look at my record. how we dealt with challenges. they see confidence and they see confident leaders. i hope that is the kind of leader they want to have running. the people of iowa know you? things i learned, if you have to spend time here. it requires a lot of personal connectivity. being at the state fair, for example. there is also, being in a living

room with five people. we have had some of the most proactive routes -- proactive crowds. do you plan to spend a lot more time here? >> yes, of course. nobody has spent more time here and i went then i have over the past year. >> thank you, so much. [indiscernible] >> thank you. >> one more before i go back to pittsburgh.

>> come here, gang. turn around and look at her. >> ready. here it goes. >> thank you, boys. see you later. that is a yellow shirt right there. .ello, girls will sto hello, boys.

[indiscernible] perry: that is a rig, right there. hi, girls! how are y'all? everybody good? >> my name is annabelle. record i will caucus news. news.a caucas are you considering dropping out?

perry: not at all. i understand the frustration. that is my job. we will be here a lot. we are going a lot of places. thank you very much. >> i recall a lot of things different 40 years ago. -- four years ago. i learned it is not the size of the crowd, or the size of your checkbook, it is the size of your heart.

i am pretty sure rick santorum did not have big crowds, either. what have you been? were you not at the speech today? that is a totally new phenomena. what i do know. iowa operate within a very different set of rules.

they want to talk to you. they want to interact with you. the they want to talk about the issues. >> [indiscernible] sure.

where were you yesterday? >> i have been paying my dues. >> it to not get good pictures of it? >> she wants another picture.

>> do you want to get it going on that now? >> they treated us pretty rough. i bet it will be a pretty good day. going?how is it glad you are here. i am thinking we are not going to go ride this. what do you think?

[laughter] >> the corndog is world renowned. girls. how are you? howdy! good to see you. you, sir?

perry: how are you, sir? good to see you. how are you? hey, girls. run off. turn it around. here we go. three.he count of 1, 2, 3. thank you. girls.hey, thank you. good to be out here with you.

andy's leading. [laughter] perry: hey, boys. >> good morning, governor. working up a good -- we are going the perpendicular

now, through the main way, right? find food out here, then -- he didn't go to one place and say, give me what you have? >> no. perry: well, they figure out everything, pretty much. can you clear the way here?

hello, girls. how are you? >> get over here. how are you? how are you, girl? >> it is her birthday! girl: is this the birth a -- birthday girl? day washter's birth yesterday. happy birthday. are we going in there? we are going in there.

howdy. how are you? >> good. what was the town we were in the other day? campbellton! i threw up next to a swede. i went to school with danish boys and 1972. friends with the danish boys because they had the best food. they did. from?in denmark are you

how long are you here? >> two weeks. [indiscernible] [laughter] with him? you thank you.

[indiscernible] >> i'll be there. perry: we are going to go there.

[indiscernible] >> i think in 1959. >> yup. back.as a few years

>> over the weekend. perry: you probably don't need it. >> we probably don't need it, but -- how are you enjoying the fair? perry: it's good! i enjoy county fairs, state fairs -- better than little the county fair. perry: there is a little bit of

everything. he wrote to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continue live from the iowa state fair. as the candidate speak at the des moines register's soapbox, this morning it is said in her ted cruz -- it is senator ted cruz. chris christie and bobby jindal at 1:00. campaign 4016, taking you on the road to the white house. >> coming up on c-span, a discussion on the first 10 years of the supreme court under under john roberts. current and former solicitor general's spoke at the annual american bar association meeting in chicago.

journal," "washington have his views on efforts to combat islamic terrorism. the former missouri governor and american automotive policy president speaks. we also hear about the efforts to improve police practices. you can join the conversation with your comments on facebook and twitter when "washington journal" is live. rick santorum talks about immigration policy at the national press club. we will have his remarks live at 11:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> this sunday night,

presidential historian and rave hunter -- grave hunter documents his adventures visiting the the president and vice presidents. getting onto the rockefeller gravesite is difficult. we were able to get to it through an act of god. my father walked farther down the perimeter and saw this gigantic tree. it had fallen. he went in and thought nelson rockefeller's grave. he decided to get me there fairly quickly after that. on c-span's e that a." >> next, a discussion on the first 10 years of the supreme court under john roberts.

current and former solicitor general's spoke at the annual american bar association meeting in chicago. this is 90 minutes. >> good morning. good early morning. it is nice to see all of you on this beautiful morning in chicago. welcome to the showcase panel on 10 years of the roberts court. i am kannon shanmugam. i do not know if any of you remember where you were on september 3, 2005. i remember where i was. i was at a college football game with my father. it was a first game of the season. we got to my parents house after the game and turned on the tv and saw the breaking news alert on cnn that william rehnquist had died after a short battle with cancer.

that triggered a fast-moving series of events that culminated in the confirmation of john roberts as the next chief justice of the united states. within a month, he was sitting in the center chair of the supreme court, hearing arguments. for me, that is hard to believe that was 10 years ago. exactly 10 years ago from the dates we sit here today. we are going to talk today about a number of aspects of those last 10 years. i will very briefly introduce the panelists and talk a little bit about the format. estrada,ht, is miguel inartner at gibson dunn washington. he has been there for almost two decades. he is one of the best known

advocates practicing before the supreme court and has argued 22 cases before the court. first as a lawyer in the justice department and then as a lawyer in private practice. my left is adam liptak, supreme court correspondent for the times. he has been a correspondent since 2008. he has covered most of the roberts court. he covered other legal issues before that for "the times." rather like a former baseball player, he turns into a commentator and his best is -- and he himself is a lawyer. he brings perspective of someone who knows of what he speaks. and to his left is nicole saharsky. the honorable nicole saharsky. she may be a regular person, but she is an extraordinary lawyer.

she has argued 23 cases before the supreme court. if my math is correct. assistant to the solicitor general. she serves in the office that handles the government of litigation for the supreme court. she has been there since 2007. she is now the longest-serving assistant in the office and i can say, one of the finest advocates before the supreme court. i can say that from personal experience, having argued against her last fall in the omnicare case. in terms of the format for this morning, we have approximately 90 minutes. we will just kind of chat amongst ourselves for most of that time, but we will take questions from the audience. if you are too shy, send me a tweet, and i will read a question.

if you do not want to vocalize it yourself, and i do have a few questions submitted on twitter earlier this week. but me start with a very general question for all of the members of the panel. start with adam, then to miguel, and then to nicole. you are going to talk about subs attentive -- talk about substantive areas of law, and i promise we will not get deeply into those issues today, but i want to start with general observations about the style and overall approach of the roberts court. i will put the question this way . if you have to think of and identify a distinctive characteristic quality of the roberts court, any aspect of the roberts court, what would that be? adam: i will start with the chief justice taking the spot of chief justice rehnquist, which was not the spot for which was nominated.

he was nominated to be the associate justice to replace justice o'connor. i think an associative justice roberts would be very different from the chief justice roberts. i think he may have voted differently because he has an institutional perspective. he is the custodian of the court's authority, prestige, legitimacy. in taking the chief spot, it led to justice alito taking justice o'connor's spot. justice alito, we have now had four versions of the roberts court. that is unusual. we have o'connor, then alito. then elena kagan. the only switch is alito from o'connor, and that is the characteristic. that alito, in cases involving

abortion, campaign finance, race , probably voted differently than justice o'connor would have. best shorthand way of saying what is distinctive about the roberts court. kannon: we will talk over the course of the panel of the central role of justice kennedy and changes in court membership. miguel, you have a unique perspective in having spent much of your professional career in front of the rehnquist court. you are is well-placed as anyone to comment on the styles. miguel: that makes me old. chief would interrupt you in the middle of your word "if" came up.

the new chief is more generous with the clock, which never would have happened in the rehnquist court. adam is right that the changes in membership since 2005 have done a lot to define what we think of as the roberts court. there are cases in which the law was going one way, and the addition of justice sotomayor or has shifted from justice scalia, ,ho was trying to move the law a who was trying to move the law in a pro-defendant way. you cannot think about the roberts court without thinking about several of people in 2005. it is a different port because rehnquist is no longer there but tomayorcause kagan and so

are very different. kannon: any further observations? nicole: when i think about the court and what the chief said at confirmation hearings and the iree, he pledged to be an ump and take a measured approach. it is hard for the public to see if that is happening, because you hear about the big cases like health care and gay marriage where the court is not taking a measured approach. amount of cases, the court decides cases narrowly. very far ahead of where they need to be to decide the case. the chief himself is very measured. the point you made is good that chief justice roberts is very different from justice roberts. chief justice roberts is aware of the court's role in america.

case, hey marriage read dissent roosevelt. we had -- from the bench. we had never hear him read dissent from the bench. he is not justice scalia or alito. we were actually talking about, and we remember a time where he read dissent from the bench? he takes a very cheaply approach. approach.e -- chiefly that is the only way i can describe it. for the next few minutes, i would like to talk style.he chief justice's his personal style, the way he conducts himself in oral enda."nt, and his "ag

he has talked a lot about the judicial role and judicial modesty. we are not going to go in any particular order. does anybody want to weigh in on a particular aspect? on a bench of smart lawyers, he is the smartest. a legal craftsman. very good writer. opinionsnd kagan right . you read the faqs section and you understand what is going on. they make it crystal clear. kannon: he is charming and awfully tough at oral argument. the old chief was nasty and dismissive in a very charming. -- way.

you knew he did not give a darn. he was just yanking your chain. some argument where, if he did not like the position you are arguing, he would cut you off really quickly. during one case where a red light went on and he said, one minute for a bottle. rebuttal, but that was that. the old chief had a more congenial mannerism. sometimes you get on his bad side. but i think he has a better understanding for what it is to be on the other side of the bench. because he was there so many times. he is gentler with people.

not always with the sg's office. miguel: he used to be there. kannon: was he tough on you because he was in the sg's office? nicole: there have been a few cases that he and justice alito see government overreaching that he is not happy with. a lot of the things he gives the government are hard time are not hope rival -- high profile cases. something that would get people out of bed in the morning. kannon: like this? [laughter] nicole: he questioned me aggressively for five minutes. i am doing my best, why are you yelling at me? times, when he says

things like, i cannot believe the government would say "x." but you work for the government. anyone watching at home, lawyers in the sg's office make the minimum wage. let me turn the discussion back to 2005. we did not answer the second part of your question, does he have an agenda. i have written that he has. i am sure he thinks he does not. i am sure he decides cases one at that time. but there seems to be cases, in particular about race, that light of his curiosity and assertiveness. this chief may care more or less about federalism than the old chief.

thatn: i do want to get to and where the court is on substantive issues, but what the court is interested in. let me ask a last question about personal style. we have a chief justice who rehnquist, was one of the pallbearers at his funeral. i am curious to what extent he modeled himself, early on, on the late chief? he came into an interesting situation where he was joining members of the court that been together for an unprecedented period of time. has he been more like the late chief justice? adam: i am not the right person to answer. but i do think the fact that the clerked and are so highly credentialed is characteristic

, which is that all lawyers who attended harvard or yale, with the exception of kagan, no one who has run for elected office. quite unlike justice o'connor, who was a public person who served in all three branches of arizona government. they do have that in roberts. the old chief talked about this, that there is a tendency in american judicial like to become more like the europeans. you do not have what the brown court look like. former governor, former attorney general, making high-profile decisions, but rather credentialed lawyers who only wanted to become a judge. as in europe, where being a judge is a lifelong career. man?n: is he his own

miguel: absolutely. in the obamacare case, we wonder if he can read, but he is his own man. adam is right. they are all skilled technical lawyers. mourn the passing of the world court. -- warren court. the opinions are incomprehensible. but it is good to have a withssional, skilled court professional lawyers. i do not think we need to have a governor whose ostensible purpose is to bring something other to the law. that is where we are.

of --: let's take a out invitation to look at substantive areas of the law and pick up the question he was trying to pose to himself. how does the court change in terms of its priority? one of the questions i got was, can the panel talk about the court's ever-shrinking docket? is the docket shrinking? and where is the court focusing its energy? i do not think it is shrinking. people have relatively short memories. in the 1980's, the court heard 150 cases on the merits every. ofect of -- in september

1988, they got rid of mandatory jurisdiction. most of the cases the court was hearing were challenges in state proceedings that had no business being in supreme court. it was mandatory jurisdiction. all manner of things that are important to the parties, but not to the country. since 1988, you have seen a sharp drop in the number of cases the court hears. around 55 to 78 a year. i do not think it is shrinking. but i think the court is exercising more care now that he has choice in the cases he takes. and the chief justice, coming has a business background, had some influence, from what

one can tell, into the composition of the docket. the court used to take one patent case every three decades. to flip take several the federal circuit. returnsral circuit every now and again on patent cases and makes you think you should have a specialized court. kannon: in regard to this aspect of our discussion, he seems relatively deferential to the government views. nicole: he tends to agree with government views. aat a lot of people see is lot of business cases. most oft have a dog in those fights, but we had been in some of them. in private practice at the beginning of the roberts court, i remember the things the

business community was up in arms about, punitive damages. was not a lot on the business agenda. now there are class-action concerns. even in areas like security fraud, the government has an interest in those. that has been a serious attempt to get some cutbacks on the part of the business unity. even unions cases for next year. those are cases that the government has more or less interest in because of the business community. we have cert proofs, and i cannot say they have deferred to all of us, but it is interesting to see cases of that type. kannon:, what is going on with

those changes? adam: reuters did a nice study on this. the rise of the specialized supreme court, which continues to dominate at the cert and merits stage. the increasing likelihood that a business group will find the right case and the light -- right lawyer to launch a petition, has aided the courts in increasing its business docket. i would mention arbitration. the business community has done well with this court. it is attributable in part to the ones inmber -- private practice -- the small number of lawyers who dominate. kannon: miguel, do you agree

with that? miguel: you can always knock on the door, but they can always slammed the door in your face. thinking back to the rehnquist starr wrote an article bemoaning these business issues he tried to take to the supreme court to no avail. at the time, the court was not that interested. it is maybe part of what adam said, pushing the open door. more receptive to believing those issues are as important as the subordinate act,e of the death penalty for which they take several years.

part of it is organization on part of the business community. rise of the chamber of commerce, thinking what issues do we want to be addressing in the supreme court of the united states? paging through the cases the court was deciding in the 2005 term. the business issues the court are getting have been brought out better through the court. the walmart case was huge and attractive case from the business side. the business community has been pushing better than if you have been looking at the 2005 terms. there were business issues there. it was more scattershot. i don't know how much you attribute to the lawyers or the courts. it is definitely happening. there are issues that keep coming back. securities fraud.

the court puts a sign on the door saying please knock. justice alito says he would love to have another case and he got one in short order. an interestingte piece on the subject of justices and opinions inviting rotations for review by saying this is an issue we would like to consider. if the number of cases on the docket has remained static and if the court is taking more business cases, what is the court taking less of? i will offer one possibility. agree or disagree. federalism and the federal government and the states. the right was court -- rehnquist limitationsimposed on seminal tribe, and sovereign immunity. those issues have receded from the court stock. nicole: that seems right. one perception i have of the

court, the beginning of the roberts court, the court was trying to resolve circuit splits. and maybe on some issues that not many people care about what they would do it. now they take cases along the lines of we think the decision below is wrong. adam: like the fish case. a level ofbe it is confidence. this is a confident court in many respects. it is a level of confidence of the cases they think matter. kannon: is federalism a low priority for the chief justice? is basically right. i don't think it was a high priority for the old chief but it was a high priority for justice o'connor. i do remember we had some cases and she would walk the halls and

i saw her going down the hall, having justice scalia, talking to him about some commerce clause 11th amendment case. she would not be put off in those cases. the chief was congenial. i think it would not have been pushing as much if she had not been that engine for that. kannon: do you attribute that to her background? miguel: yes. coming from the west, -- kannon: the real west. not california. miguel: as scalia would say. having been a state official in the real west, she took these things seriously and took a slight when the government came in and looked over what state governments were doing.

that is no longer there. the old chief was congenial with the interview but he was not pushing it. she was pushing it. adam: this chief justice, except when he was in practice, has worked for the federal government. kannon: as have many. that is a common thread with the members of court who have joined. the interesting thing about justice o'connor leaving is the rise of justice oh kennedy -- justice kennedy. one might have expected him to push the federalism agenda as much. he is sympathetic to it but not always. there are cases that could have gone off on federal base grounds that happened. it's interesting. he could have played that role. he did not have the same passion she did. adam: he pushed federalism in

the first marriage case and then stopped wishing it. kannon: let's turn to substantive areas of the law. let me pose one of these tried-and-true questions. everyone talks about the roberts court. is this the kennedy court? 54 -- 5-4 decisions, it is kennedy plus liberals or kennedys with the conservatives. the chief is in the majority almost as much as kennedy. the chief justice in the majority gets to assign the majority opinion. that is not an insignificant power. in that sense it is also -- kannon: that is not entirely accidental? thing, byt is a close

voting with majority you can find a way to give rise to a narrow decision you may be tempted to do that. example,o give an there is one of the issues in which the business community have been pushing, securities fraud. there was a series of cases about this idea of fraud on the market. the way of proving reliance, which some on the defense side friendly toto plaintiffs. there were two questions, one about a narrow question with the fifth circuit had said he met to prove a certain something to move forward. you could rely on this on the market theory. a second case address should this have this area at all? the first question was a narrow case. the chief justice wrote the opinion. the circuit was wrong to make you through this extra thing. that position prevailed.

,hen we had the bigger question should you have this theory at all? i remember briefing the second case. give already won this. i'm going to look at that and see what great things are in there. the chief justice wrote the opinion. this says nothing helpful to us. we won this case and it is written so narrowly, and with the knowledge that this other cases probably coming that it does not advance the ball at all. this say talented person who is deciding the case knowing this other cases coming, whether you say it is because he wants to decide cases narrowly or if he had no agenda, it was an example where it was a situation. -- kannon: does narrow decision-making love and exercise power to control the opinions more often? adam: yes.

and the two voting rights act cases are a perfect example. up, the chief narrow writes a very everybody to which but tom assigns on. in a couple of paragraphs that would come in handy. we already decided there is this principle called = 20 of the states. equal sovereignty of the states. i think that is right. i'm not sure to what extent there is a contrast in decision to write narrowly for instrument of purposes. , he wouldnk about it have thought about it, it is not

relatively unlikely that we are going to have hillary clinton administration in 2016. his colleagues are not going to get congenial as time passes. if he were instrumental, he would be writing more broadly to cement things while he has the vote. in fact he is not. you would think he is writing these things narrowly because he thinks that is the appropriate role of the court, not because he is doing it for instrumental reasons. kannon: is and one side effect that issues come back to the court in short order? is one such that case. the other cases section five of the voting rights act, and the affirmative-action case that got sent back on narrow grounds and is back to terms later. miguel: -- nicole: the chief may see

some benefit to that. let's get the arguments out. let's see what people are thinking. let's plant some seeds. i understand that. in the halliburton case that is essentially what happened. the broad rule prevailed. a lot of people thought that rule was going down and it did not. kannon: with the chief justice in the majority. there are decisions from the 1970's and 1980's, written in a different way than the court does things now. written in broader strokes with not as much citation or reasoning or things the current court would like to see. they are giving the stink eye to these decisions, not sure if these are good decisions or not. if you can say there is a basis for these decisions let's stick with it. they are willing to look at it

again. kannon: that raises the question 's attitude may be different from that. predecessors. adam: there is a lot of discussion of the difference upholding earlier decisions and the statutory context where congress is available to come back and change the decision. there is a lot of talk of that. suggests on the usual metrics of activism, is this a court that overturns earlier decisions, is this a court that strikes down laws? it is in keeping with earlier courts. when it does do those things it does them in a conservative direction. ?iguel: you think same-sex marriage, juvenile death penalty,