justice alito talked about a... the second amendment gives you a right to have a gun in the home for self-defense. this is the crucial part. he repeated the language from heller that says this right is not unlimited. you can have restrictions on who gets guns and where they take the guns, how the guns are sold, carried and stored and even what kinds of guns they are. in effect the extremes are off the table. what we ought to do now, you can't have gun bans but you can't have this anybody any gun anywhere vision that i think wayne pushes sometimes. let's find the common ground in the middle that will keep our communities safer. >> ifill: in your reading of that decision today, would it apply to say places like new jersey or even new york city which have other kinds of limitations placed on individual gun ownership? >> gwen, it applies to every city and every town in the country. i understand, look, i mean there will be groups like paul's that we're going to have to fight to make sure this constitutional victory is no

risen out of the -- out of recent confirmation proceedings with chief justice roberts and justice alito, and i've spoken about this subject extensively on the floor citing how emphatic chief justice roberts and justice alito were on deferring to congress. it's a legislative function. it's not a judicial function, they say. if you engage in fact-finding, if the court does that, the court is transgressing into the congressional area. and then you have a case like citizens united and others, and you have the declarations by the chief justice of modesty. you've adopt that had standard. his more emphatic citizen was not to jolt the system. is there any way you can look at citizens united oter than being aremendous jolt to the system? >> senator specter, as an advocate this is one i've taken a strong view on which is that it was a jolt to the system, that there were -- there was a great deal of reliance interests involved, that many states had passed pieces of legislation in reliance upon austin, that congress had passed legislation after accumulating a voluminous record. >> ms. kagan, you ha

he was come maintaining at the democrats were unfairly beating up on justice alito and he was talking about that. as he described that. she began to cry and that was a memorable moment and symbolized for a lot of people how political these proceedings are and how, when the outcome seems pretty determined, the politicians try to use the opportunity and the spotlight to score political points that resonate with the hope with voters. host: of 111 su dream court justices. 18 attended and 14 graduated from harvard law school. next call? harrisberg, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. he works for the "wall street journal". is that owned by merdock? well enough said that. i think elena kagan deserves to be on the supreme court and i find it eye ron tick court is lowed to the right. know body wants to use the term hypocrite. i think the president did a heck of a job nominating her. host: greg? >> i have one quick question. i know she hasn't had any experience sitting as judge. i'm wondering because she was appointed by the democrats if they're going to have a lot of political polls on the su

we should not have a show like they had for just as alito where his wife was crying. we want to know everything about the. are you either a member of the clare boothe luce society? guest: i am not but i hope we get a hearing where we are not forcing people into tears. the senators will have something concrete rather than guesses from documents in terms of the votes. host: thank you for being here and we appreciate your opinion on this. we want to point our viewer to an article in ""the new york times" this morning. bill clinton has comments about elena kagan and his service during her administration. that does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning and next we will have the interview with senator patrick leahy. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . . >> mr. chairman, i wonder if you can comment on elana kagen's writings about 20 years ago abthe con23ir78ation process about how she talked about nominees avoiding substantive questions. do y

coming up next, supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and samuel alito take place in a mock triall then remarks from actress ashley judd. then weekly addresses from president obama and john boehner. . >> up next, supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and samuel alito take part in a mock trial looking at whether henry v was justified in killing french prisoners of war after the battle of kagen court. they are joined by other federal -- battle of age in couagincour. they are joined by other federal judges. this was held in march. it is about two hours. >> oyez, oyez. the supreme court of the amalgamated kingdom of england and france is now in session. you may be seated. >> the court has convened to hear the case of the french civil liberties union against henry v. the arguments will open by the petitioners, and i will call upon mr. garre. [laughter] >> merci, madame chief justice. [laughter] may it please the court, 10,000 -- the tally that king henry announces at the battle of agincourt. that figure alone underscores the gravity of the offense that he committed when he waged hi

like jeff sessions are coming out and talking about activist judges but when they put roberts and alito the activist judges to me as a liberal. host: thanks. jess bravin. guest: activist judges is a term that gets thrown around a lot. actually president obama in his book "audacity of hope, " he said an activist judge is a judge that rules against you, in effect. as a journalist would try to stay away from that term because it has become just a synonym for, a judge would disagree with. republicans have often claimed that liberal decisions are activist decisions, this year we hear it conservative decisions are activist decisions. we prefer to stick to what the decision said and referred to our own judgment about whether we think that is an with precedent. in terms of who the democrats and republicans have appointed to the supreme court, again, with the citizens united and many of the decisions that the president and democrats have criticized, they have mostly been 5-4 decisions, with four justices, is agreed that number, disagreeing with the majority. all three of the current justices app

and they made a deal because alito was some man that wanted to keep women out when he was at princeton. they'll make a deal. she'll be confirmed. the president has a right to pick who he wants. would she be my first choice? i didn't. >> larry: dana, in 1995 while a professor at the university of chicago kagan said she thought supreme court confirmations were hallow charades. was she right? >> i enjoy this stuff. i want to know what people are saying. i want everything to be drug out into the light. that's how i look at it. >> you enjoy senators making speeches today? >> i liked jeff sessions remarks. i like watching it. you can see it. it's like a soap opera. i really enjoy watching it. i like to see how she reacts with all of this as well. >> dana, i beg to differ. this is kind of a complex legal term. i thought jeff sessions was kind of being an ass hat. >> because he pointed out the obvious? >> he was way over the top. he was reciting her record. if it's over the top, take it up with her. >> she was working in the clinton administration. that doesn't mean those are her views. that w

risen out of the -- out of recent confirmation proceedings with chief justice roberts and justice alito, and i've spoken about this subject extensively on the floor citing how emphatic chief justice roberts and justice alito were on deferring to congress. it's a legislative function. it's not a judicial function, they say. if you engage in fact-finding, if the court does that, the court is transgressing into the congressional area. and then you have a case like citizens united and others, and you have the declarations by the chief justice of modesty. you've adopt that had standard. his more emphatic citizen was not to jolt the system. is there any way you can look at citizens united other than being a tremendous jolt to the system? >> senator specter, as an advocate this is one i've taken a strong view on which is that it was a jolt to the system, that there were -- there was a great deal of reliance interests involved, that many states had passed pieces of legislation in relianceupon austin, that congress had passed legislation after acculating a voluminous record. >> ms. kagan, you ha

it was a majority opinion by justice alito. there was a very strong dissenting opinion by justice ginsburg. you point that the private sector could retire -- the employees pay was confidential. i worked for 40 years where nobody knew anybody else's salary and that is very common in the private sector. the majority seemed completely unaware. the reality of the workplace -- >> it is rather interesting that the present court, both the rehnquist court and the robert court, -- roberts court, seemed unaware of the concept of statutory construction, when you are interpreting remedial legislation, you did it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction -- give it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction, so that the objective of the legislation can be achieved. you see that in the 1960's and 1970's. now, you only see reference to that language in dissents. that is a cardinal principle that has been around for more than 100 years. >> let me turn to john hiatt. the court's recent record on labor law cases is somewhat mixed. am i ri

be the junior justice for those 11 years before we have the addition of justice roberts and justice alitos that he had to play a certain role on answering the door for the other justices in their private conference, bringing them coffee, taking notes. we watch how they play off each other in public, but it reveals about -- a bit about what has gone on privately. it is going to be unusual to send the have a second justice so quickly. -- suddenly have a second justice so quickly. we're all just getting used to justice sotomayor, and if things go smoothly as i believe they will for elena kagan, she will come on soon and that will be another court and lost more news for those of us who follow the justices. >> from and advocates perspective, it will change the dynamic of the argument somewhat, but the preparation is the same. if you are preparing for argument and you are trying to figure out every possible question any justice of any name might ask, and it could come from anyone at any time, i think the preparation is largely the same. it will be harder to predict where justice kagan will come

justice alito did not participate in the case so the court split 4-4 on this point. but had he participated, and voted with the conservatives on the court, then today, individuals harmed by oil spills like "exxon valdez" would be subject to a flat ban on punitive damages in maritime actions. as we consider the current disaster in the gulf, the prospect is worth contemplating. as has been said several times but again worth repeating, the court's decision last fall in citizens united case which several of my colleagues mentioned is the latest example of the court's pro corporate bent. the majority opinion in that case should put the nail in the coffin of the claims that judicial activism is a sin committed by judges of only one political ideology. what makes the citizens united decision tishlgly troubling is that it is at odds with what some of the court's most recently confirmed members said during their confirmation hearings. we heard a great deal about their deep respect for existing resident. now, however, the respect seems to varnish whenever it interferes with th

to concur, as to parts one and two, scalia, justice, filed a dissenting opinion in which thomas and alito joined. thomas justice filed an opinion in which others joined except for parts two, three b one. roberts, the chief justice took no part of the consideration or the decision of the case. i mean, that's -- i think the one thing you can be clear about in the setting like that is roberts took no part in the decision of the case. and if we are trying to say that the law, that the rule of law, provides a set of boundaries in which people can make decisions with confidence, and in the defense of the united states of america, we need for the executive branch to have a set of rules that they can -- in which they can operate confidently. if we can't operate confidently, what does it give to our enemy? it says to the enemy, it suggests to them we are morally ambiguous, it says to them we don't know how we're operating anddwhat we can do. it impairs our ability to defend freedom. the defense of freedom requires the rule of law. and the rule of law is one of the greatest supporters of freedom be

republicans credit tom coburn, a republican senator from oklahoma, lobbed softball after softball to alito and chief justice john roberts back in the day. he was receiving, if you will, yesterday, at the lack of response. part of the frustration people have with these hearings, and just depending upon who is sitting on the seedbeds of the direct -- reaction from the panel. i expect some evasion. you can criticize it, but on the other hand, there were good exchanges. senator orrin hatch, republican from utah, he had a very interesting and informative dialogue with the nominee about the first amendment and campaign finance reform and the citizens united case. dianne feinstein had a good conversation. lindsey graham as well on the legal war -- were on terror. there is some substance, but it is surrounded by platitudes that we have come to expect. host: it seems that yes today and there was more talk yesterday and the day before about thurgood marshall and "the roberts scored." depending on whether you are democrat or republican. democrat -- democrat spring of the roberts scored and -- why all

each of those things that you just mentioned, justice alito, is no worse than saying that you cut a baby into. if carried into execution, that would mean all of those things are clearly horrifying. about my problem, mr. estrada, with this is how quickly he acted. he did not pause even a second to say what are the facts? what is going on? he just immediately heard the sounds of battle and issued " order to set -- and issued the order to slaughter the pows. it shouldn't he have it least taken a few seconds to find out what was going on? >> i don't think the imperative at the moment allowed him to allow for greater investigation. even then, the king said, i don't know if you have won because many of the horsemen galloping over the field. the circumstances of the confused battle did not allow for a full accounting of the reduced english forced to take the rest which would have been paid with their own lives that this attack was really finally, not to " the french, for real. you really have to take into account, as was said from the bench earlier, that it is an impossible tact to ask a group

. >> justice alito has the opinion of this court. >> this is our moment. the opinion, the guys from reuters is the most pushy to get through. he wants to get it on to the waters. >> the supreme court office supplies says, here is the material, make up what you will. we will make sure that you have the material. that is an enormously valuable thing. there's not the sense the someone is trying to spend. >> i want to go out and hear the opinion and now. i like the pageantry of that. i like to hear that justice himself or herself announce what is in the opinion. then i raced down the stairs to the corps press area where we all have our laptop set out. and i write a first version of phat story said that it didn't get on our internet site. readers want to know as soon as possible what the court ruled. >> a lot of people say that it is a sacred institution. no, it is not. it is an institution where most+ of his work is done in the open. the work comes in the front door and goes out the front door. >> you're just a few steps away from the courtroom.. >> near the c

. >> justice alito has the opinion of the court. >> this is our moment. grab the copies of the opinions and go rushing. the guy from ridereuter's is als rushing to get in on the wire service, so you have to get out of the way. the supreme court public information office simply says, and here is the material. make of it what you will. but we will make sure that you have the material, and that is an enormously valuable thing. it is also good to not have the sense that someone is trying to spin you. >> i like to hear the justice himself or herself announce what is in the opinion. then, i raced down the tairs to the court press area, where we all have our laptops set up now, and i write a first version of that story so it can get on our internet site. readers really want to know as soon as possible what the court ruled and what potentially that miggt mean. >> a lot of people say it is a very secret institution. no, it is not. it is an institution that does most of its work in the open, and as they say, the worker goes in the front door and goes out the front

it was a majority opiniony justice alito. there was a very strong dissenting onion by justice ginsburg. you point that the private sector could retire -- the employees pay was confidential. i worked for 40 years where nobody knew anybody else's salary and that is very common in the private sector. the majority seemed completely unaware. the reality of the workplace -- >> it is rather interesting that the present court, both the rehnquist court and the robert court, -- roberts court, seemed unaware of the concept of statutory construction, when you are interpreting remedial legislation, you did it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction -- give it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction, so that the objective of the legislation can be achieved. you see that in the 1960's and 1970's. now, you only see reference to that language in dissents. that is a cardinal principle that has been around for more than 100 years. >> let me turn to john hiatt. the court's recent record on labor law cases is somewhat mixed. am i righ

there was a dissenting opinion in which sculley joined and alito joined as to all the parts 3b2. there was a consenting opinion. roberts, the chief justice, took no part of the case. i think the one thing you can be clear about is that roberts took no part in the decision of the case. if we are trying to say that the rule of law provides a set of boundaries in which people can make decisions with confidence and in the defense of the united states of america come we need for the objective branch to have a set of rules in which they cannot operate confidently. if we cannot operate constantly, what does it give to our enemy? it says that we are morally ambiguous and that we don't know how we're operating and what we can do. the defense of freedom requires the rule of law, and the rule of what is one of the greatest supporters of freedom. we move to the last case which is the case now before the courts. the court of appeals has again sustained the position of the department of justice so the question is whether individuals held in von brunn -- in bagram are eligible for habeus corpus

be the junior justice for those 11 years before we have the addition of justice roberts and justice alitos that he had to play a certain role on answering the door for the other justices in their private conference, bringing them coffee, taking notes. we watch how they play off each other in public, but it reveals about -- a bit about what has gone on privately. it is going to be unusual to send the have a second justice so quickly. -- suddenly have a second justice so quickly. we're all just getting used to justice sotomayor, and if things go smoothly as i believe they will for elena kagan, she will come on soon and that will be another court and lost more news for those of us who follow the justices. >> from and advocates perspective, it will change the dynamic of the argument somewhat, but the preparation is the same. if you are preparing for argument and you are trying to figure out every possible question any justice of any name might ask, and it could come from anyone at any time, i think the preparation is largely the same. it will be harder to predict where justice kagan will come

to concur, as to parts one and two, scalia, justice, filed a dissenting opinion in which thomas and alito joined. thomas justice filed a opinion in which others joined except for parts two, three b one. robert the chief justice took no part of the consideration or the decision of the cas i mean, that's -- i think the one thing you can be clear about in the setting like that is roberts took no part in e decision of the case. and if ware trying to say that the law, that the rule of law, provides a set of boundaries in which people can make decisions with confidence, and in the defense of the united states of america, we need for the executive branch to have a set of rules that they can -- in which they can operate confidently. if we can't operate confidently, what does it give to o enemy? it says to the enemy, it suggests to them we are morally ambiguous, it says to them we don't know how we're operating anddwhat we can do. it impairs our ability to defend freedom. the defense of freedom requires the rule of law. and the rule of laws one of the greatest supporters of freedom because it help

twice the material received in connection with the nominations of chief justice roberts and justice alito. in fact, we even have this nominee's senior thesis, her graduate thesis, nearly 70 articles she aught foertd daily princetonian's as a college student, 200 speeches and another 200 interviews. the only thing, as far as i can tell, that we don't have is her kindergarten report card. but i respectfully submit to my colleagues that if they can't thoroughly evaluate general kagan on the record we have, there is no record nor nominee who could satisfy them. so we already have a clear idea of a record and what this hearing will be like, which brings know my second point, which is why this hearing is so crucially important. we need a justice who can create moderate majorities on this immoderate supreme court. i'm going to be blunt about this. we have a highly fractured court with an often rarified way of approaching the law. the rightward shift of the court under chief justice roberts is palpable. in decision after decision, special interests are winning with out over ordinary citizens. in

twice the material ceived in connection with the nominations of chief justice roberts and justice alito. in fact, we even have this nominee's senior thesis, her graduate thesis, nearly 70 articles she aught foertd daily princetonian's as a college student, 200 speeches and another 200 interviews. the only thing, as far as i can tell, that we don't have is her kindergarten report card. but i respectfully submit to my colleagues that if they can't thoroughly evaluate general kagan on the record we have, there is no record nor nominee who could satisfy them. so we already have clear idea of a record and what this hearing will be like, which brings know my second point, which is why this hearing is so crucially important. we need a justice who can create moderate majorities on this immoderate supreme court. i'm going to be blunt about this. we have a hghly fractured court with an often rarifiedway of approaching the law. the righard shift of the court under chief justice roberts is palpable. in decision after decision, special interests are winning with out over ordinary citizens. in decisi

it was a 5-4 decision,, deciding vote by justice alito. in the private sector, in the goodyear tire, the pay was confidential. i work for four years in a place where no one knew anyone else's salary. that is very common in the private sector. but the majority seemed completely unaware. >> it is interesting that the present court both of justice rehnquist and justice roberts seem unaware of the principle of statutorr construction that when you are interpreting remedial legislation you give it a broad meaning from a broad liberal construction so the objectives can be achieved. you see the language in many decisions from the 1960's and 1970's. now all you only see reference to that language in dissent. it is a cardinal principle, around more than 100 years. >> john, the court's recent record on labor law cases is somewhat mixed. am i right in thinking that the pushback against the ledbetter decision, and the rapid overturning by congress, since some type of signal to the court? what is your take on the interpretation by the court? " i wish th