kannon: miguel.laughter] one of the things i thought was interesting is we think about the court, we named it after the chief justice. [indiscernible] kannon: the gloves are off. i'm going to leave. the court is named after chief justices. the chief justice doesn't control the corporate with the obama administration the president runs the executive branch. , he could beourt in dissent of the presidential election comes out in a particular direction. adam: it is a we are to attribute a name to a court where the person in question has one vote and where the personnel of the event, i have lost track of my syntax. the personal of the court changes. kannon: to what extent do you think a dramatic change in the direction of the court has influenced the chief's thinking? miguel: i don't think it has. if hemaking the point were instrumental he would write broadly on the areas but he isn't. either he has a lot of [indiscernible] or he thinks this is the appropriate role for the court. kannon: there is a lot to

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 min

kannon: miguel.laughter] one of the things i thought was interesting is we think about the court, we named it after the chief justice. [indiscernible] kannon: the gloves are off. i'm going to leave. the court is named after chief justices. the chief justice doesn't control the corporate with the obama administration the president runs the executive branch. , he could beourt in dissent of the presidential election comes out in a particular direction. adam: it is a we are to attribute a name to a court where the person in question has one vote and where the personnel of the event, i have lost track of my syntax. the personal of the court changes. kannon: to what extent do you think a dramatic change in the direction of the court has influenced the chief's thinking? miguel: i don't think it has. if hemaking the point were instrumental he would write broadly on the areas but he isn't. either he has a lot of [indiscernible] or he thinks this is the appropriate role for the court. kannon: there is a lot to

kannon: other questions? yes? >> from yesterday's program -- kannon: which one? miguel: we have 20. >> there was a concern the government had done sharp enforcements -- [inaudible] kannon: two or impede the question about the rhetoric on the court. this was something i believe justice stevens and his speech to one of the aba sections talked about as well. >> i would like your comments on what would be the roberts view. adam: has reporter, the more quotable stuff the better. i encourage it. [laughter] miguel: that sounds like one of those incalculable things from a fortune cookie. adam: i would put my head in a bag sooner than agree with you. [laughter] miguel: this is in the deep steps of the dissent. i don't think it has changed that much. there are certain members of the court that tend to be more caustic when they are in dissent. that has not changed. scalia was a happy member of the rehnquist court and he wrote nasty things about sandra day o'connor when she was around. it is possible his opinion was a touch beyond what even what he has been. not much more th

my name is kannon shanmugam, and i'm a partner at connolly in washington.on't know how many of you remember where you were on september 3, 2005, but i remember where i was. i was at a college football game with my father. in fact, it was the first game of the season, if memory serves, and we got to my folks' house after the game and turned on the tv and saw the breaking news alert on cnn that william rehnquist, the chief justice of the united states, had died after a very short battle with cancer. and that triggered a very fast-moving series of events that culminated in the confirmation of john roberts as the next chief justice of the united states. and within a month, he was sitting in the center chair of the supreme court hearing oral arguments. well, for me it's very hard to believe that that was ten years ago, and ten years ago almost exactly from the date that we sit here today. we're going to talk today about a number of aspects of those last ten years, and i will just very briefly introduce the panelists and then talk a little bit about the format. t