justice says alito, scalia, and+ thomas vigorously dissented. he said it was not constitutional -- he said it was not unconstitutional in a categorical matter but he would look on a case by case basis. he found that it was unconstitutional to sentence a particular juvenile prisoner but he would not rule out another extreme case that you could sentence someone without parole. the last case is the cos case. it demonstrates that the roberts court does not always get what it wants. this is a 5-4 decision going the other way with justice kennedy joined by the more liberal justices on the court. this confirmed the ninth circuit and sustained the constitutionality of a public law school policy saying that any group of students that wants to join and become a school recognized and school-funded group is free to do so, but you have to admit all comers. this case was brought by a christian legal group, the christian legal society that believed that that opened membership requirement infringed its free-speech and ercise rights. i will now turn it over to o

justice says alito, scalia, and+ thomas vigorously dissented. he sd it was not constitutional -- he said it was not unconstitutional in a categorical matter but he would look on a case by case basis. he found that it was unconstitutional to sentence a particular juvenile prisoner but he would not rule out another extreme case that you could sentence someone without parole. the last case is the cos case. it demonstrates that the roberts court does not always get what it wants. this is a 5-4 decision going the other way with justice kennedy joined by the more liberal justices on the court. this confirmed the ninth circuit and sustained the constitutionality of a public law school policy saying that any group of students that wants to join and become a school recognized and school-funded group is free to do so, but you have to admit all comers. this case was brought by a christian legal group, the christian legal society that believed that that opened membership requirement infringed its free-speech and exercise rights. i will now turn it over to o

originalism does not necessarily mean a alito says it means.endment of the states keep and bear arms it does not say to keep arms in your house for purposes of self-defense. if you go in for a dime, you have to go in for a dollar. if you do not, you are not doing constitutional interpretation. it is one thing to talk about ai originalsm and it is another thing to do it. i thought stevens got closest to a. the trh fo once, walter was on the side of the angels [laughter] . >> i am yielding a lifetimegreg. toreg. your bigouth *g >> richards response was very telling. the reason i think that hastings is neutral is that they don't care why. if you look at it as an anti- discrimination law, hastings does not care what you exclude one of the individuals on the basis -- on the basis of homosexuality or religion or military status, they don't care what leads you to that conclusion. the fact that the organization has a viewpoint objection to the anti-discrimination law does not make the anti-discrimination law itself entire viewpoint. -- anti-viewpoint.

for instance justice alito and the chief justice of split on another -- on a number of issues.we look to the case of animal cruelty videos and saw justice alito as the sole dissenter "videos. when we saw the decision involving life without parole for juvenile offenders, we saw the chief justice joining in the judgment on that case to strike down a life witho parole sentence with justice alito dissenting. likewise, we found that in the case involving the takgs claim against the state of floridfor its nourishment program, although the court rejected the takings claim in that case, there were four votes, toind the concept of a judicial taking to be constitutionally [unintelligible] while justice kennedy was not prepared to join the finding. although the court in many instances does reach decisions that many conservatives favor cannot agree on the reasoning behind those decisions to give a clear direction to lower courts. in addition to the citizens united decision, the term ended with some major cases. the biggest oneas the mcdonald versus chicago case, striking down the gun ban i

for their families, and then, more generally, in the south of market, so i want to think supervisor alito-pier. i am happy to co-sponsor. president chiu: any further comment, colleagues? a roll-call vote on this item, please. madam clerk: [reading roll] there are nine ayes and two no's. presidentchiu: if we can skip over to item 37. madam clerk: establishing programs for the unified school district. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi, do you have the amendments to this item? supervisor mirkarimi: fake you, mr. president. yes. allowing for extracurricular events -- thank you, mr. president. learning from that experience and debate, i asked why we do not have a service academy, and the unified school district for the fire department and the sheriff's department -- i have been working with the police department, and supervisor maxwell has, too. this is considered to be an ad hoc program already in place. for those interested in a public safety career. these discussions are underway. potentially, a particular applicant to, in the police department, becomes an applicant in the department. this is

alito says that it's for two terms and she was elected to just one.torney says term limits apply. >> governor swarzenegger says she was only kidding when she mocked mel gibson. >> good news that bp has contained the oil leak. that is good news. finally. [ applause ] the bad news is nobody has figure out how to contain mel gibson. [ laughter ] >> the governor made the comments while speaking to utility commissioners. he was referring to audio recordings reported to be of gibson berating his ex-girlfriend and uttering racial slurs. gibson's spokesman says he is happy to hear the governor has a sense of a humor. >> hayward police asked for public's help for finding a missing boy. >> is eight great white shark or not? just ahead, the two that look alike that may be causing a scare. >> a fired government worker gets a new job offer. what is next? i'll have the that story coming up. >> governor swarzenegger was referring to bp, the complications of a new storm brewing in the gulf of mexico the oil cleanup efforts. [ male announcer ] using frontline plus sho

in court, trafigura was fined 1 million euros for alito -- for illegally moving the hazardous waste. company has been found guilty of breaking export laws. the company has always denied any wrongdoing m-1 now consider how to respond to the guilty verdict. >> i think it is important to notice that the convictions relate to a highly technical complex legal matter. for they study the judgement to the effect possibility of an uphill. -- of an appeal. the west ever can country has concluded that there is strong evidence linking it to death and injury. this is denied by scientific evidence. the company has made an out-of- court payments of more than two under million dollars without admitting liability -- $200 million to outbid in liability. >> was a bad our headlines. north korea has threatened to use the nuclear deterrent and what it called a sacred war against the u.s. and south. . 84 european banks have passed financial stress tests designed to show whether they can withstand another recession. seven smaller banks failed. in britain, he is in sentence for two years in prison for downlo

i think alito and roberts had an agenda. they were working for a conservative esident who was pushing conservative policies. it just is a bit disturbing that you, quite frankly, say you don't have an agenda when you should have had. if i'm going to hire you to be my lawyer, i want you to have my agenda. i want it to be my agenda. >> i was trying to implement the agenda of theunited states president whom i worked for. >> did you have a personal belief that partial birth artion was as being proposed was too restrictive on a woman's right too choose? >> i was at all times trying to ensure that president clinn's views and objectives with respect to this issue we carried forward. and president clinton h strong views with respect to this sniper here's the difference between being a lawyer and a policy person in a political shop. i would -- i just want totry the best i can, it's okay if you did. i expect tat presidents are going to hire talented ntellectually gifted people who think like they do that will push the envelope when it

>> you know, the interesting tv moment a lot of people when they saw justice alito shaking his head atsomething president obama said and saying that's not true, thought it was disrespectful. but i don't know if it has much weight outside of that. you know, the president says that he wants congress to do something about that campaign financing case. but the court decided that on constitutional grounds. so short of abolishing or amending the first amendment, i'm not real sure what the court can do what the congress can do. >> brown: a last word from you, do you see any lasting repercussions from that spat or movement on the case itself? >> i'm not-- i don't know about the lasting repercussions but i think it's interesting that the president has been willing to so publicly criticize the supreme court. and that chief justice roberts hasn't been shy about responding. i think that that is an interesting dynamic. and one that i suspect we will see more of in the coming years. >> all right. i want to thank you. that omee, paul butler, tom goldstein, thanks a lot. >> thank you. >> you're welcom

i think alito and roberts had an agenda. they were working for a conservative presidentho was pushing conservative policies. it just is a bit disturbing that you, quite frankly, say you don't have an agenda when you should have had. if i'm going to hire you to be lawyer, i want you to have my agenda. i want it to be my agenda. >> i was trying to implement the agenda of the united states president whom i worked for. >> did you have a personal belief that partial birth abortion was as being proposed was too restrictive on a woman's right too choose? >> i was at all times trying to ensure that president clinton's views and objectives with respect to this issue wer carried foard. and president clinton had strong views with respect to this sniper here's the difference between being a lawyer and a policy person in a political shop. i would -- i just want to try the best i can, it's okay if you did. i expect that presidents are going to hire talented intellectually gifted people who think like they do that will push the envelope wh

. >> alito is the supervisor and she is opposed saying the apartment building will be accessible forisabled and near troubled spots on lombard street. >> the fact that it's close to real hot spots in district two where we see a lot of prostitution and drug dealing. we should do it right and appropriately and do it with community support. >>> that housing is expected to be ready sometime in 2012. in the meantime, the city is hoping to form a citizens's task force as the project moves forward. >> don't go away. 7 on your side is up next. >> local car dealer is forced to close its doors, some of the customers are out thousands of dollars. an investigation is just ahead. [ male announcer ] using frontline plus shows your pet you care... by unleashing a complete killing force against... ...fleas and ticks. and not st grown fas. unlike other products from your vet, ...frontline plus also kills flea eggs and larvae, ...and keeps killing for 30 days -- on dogs and cats. that's why it's... .the #1 choice of vets for their pets, and yours. there's killing, and thers complete killing with front

but when you have the chief juice and the associate justice alito testifying about the great deference to be paid to congressional fact finding and make no mistake about it, they said bluntly it's a legislative function, it's not a judicial function. when you start to make -- find facts in the court you're legislating and then what do they do in citizens united? long concurring opinion by the chief justice where he took back all his testimony. took back all his testimony on stare decisis and on the separation of power on legislation. there you have 100,000-page record, the problems of funding and the political system critical to our institutions and the supreme court declares mccain/feingold unconstitutional, reverses a relatively recent supreme court decision in austin, which set the parameters for how you regulate campaign finances and they say it is an aberration. well, i guess roe versus wade could be an aberration. i doubt that brown versus board of education is an aberration but who knows whenou have the powers being taken on by the court. and then the cases the court doesn't dec

the fact that many on the other side of the aisle, the implication has been that the same thing by alito and roberts that they weren't straight forward. that, in fact, they didn't keep their word on stare decisis. so you understand what we're battling with. that's why i'm not suure the hearings are a great thing. i think we ought to do it the way we used to do it. sit down and talk and spend a lot of time with you and get a comfort level where we feel like we really get to know you and what you believe and what your actions will be. let me go to one other thing. senator corn inattemyn attempte this. i think it's a really important question. if i wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and i got it through congress and it's now the law of the land. does that violate the commerce clause? i got one that is real similar that is equally dumb. >> i think the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional. and i think courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they

>> according to the response justice alito wrote, he said i should have complained after the first paycheck, that i received that was discriminatory, even though i didn't know that, and no way to prove it. >> so i was wondering, and i know justice ginsburg, something i talked to solicitor general kagan about this, was i suppose, you would have had to be rifling through the drawers of looking at pay stubs or asking your fellow employees how much they were making? is that what you were supposed to do? >> well, i was supposed to do that in order to find out. and had i done that, i would have been fired. >> right. so i think one of the reasons your case, in addition to the obvious wrongs that were righted by the law that we passed in congress, but i think one of the things that interested me about your case was it was just an example of you, who never thought you'd end up here in the halls of congress, nor i think did any of the other witnesses here. i can see them shaking their heads at the end and wondering if it's that fun, anyway, to be here, but what strikes me most about your case is that

we nominated justice alito 12 days. it's been 13 days since we completed hers. i hope we saw the time we took for both of those men now serves on the court. that we will not take longer for this woman that has been nominated for the court. a number of senators have already announced their votes. i hope we will not needlessly deny her as we have denied justice roberts or alito. and the know and feel that every member of the committee has made up his or her mind. with that, i give it to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate you allowing at the hearing a opportunity for members on this side to ask questions. and i think all of our members were able to ask the questions they had. and i respect you and thank you. you have been through many of the matters. and you've move it up fast. this is -- will be almost as fast as sotomayor or faster, and we don't have quite at time crunk we had last time. so i think we are moving this nomination in an expeditious manner. and i think one week is appropriate and i ask that we put it over one week. >> i respect your ri

but when you have the chief justice and the associate justice alito testifying about the great deference to be paid to congressional fact finding and make no mistake about it, they said bluntly it's a legislative function, it's not a judicial function. when you start to make -- find facts in the court you're legislating and then what do they do in citizens united? long concurring opinion by the chief justice where he took back all his testimony. took back all his testimony on stare decisis and on the separation of power on legislation. there you have 100,000-page record, the problems of funding and the political system critical to our institutions and the supreme court declares mccain/feingold unconstitutional, reverses a relatively recent supreme court decision in austin, which set the parameters for how you regulate campaign finances and they say it is an aberration. well, i guess roe versus wade could be an aberration. i doubt that brown versus board of education is an aberration but who knows when you have the powers being taken on by the court. and then the cases the court doesn't d

. -- justice alito. this is one of those moments for congress to show restraint. i prepared my statement in this regard in march of this year in the form of an article that the former chief judge of the third circuit and i wrote that appeared in the "national law journal." with your indulgence i will refer to it now because it pretty much summarizes what i think is the right approach and what i think is the wrong approach. this was written primarily in response to an approach recommended by the charges that were leveled by the brookings institution which faulted congress for failing to act by writing a detailed code that the specified procedures that courts should use in deciding who at guantanamo bay may be lawfully detained. we wrote this piece because of our concern that i mentioned earlier, about congressional action where it is not necessary and where it may well be the likelihood that things could become more mobile -- muddled. so i will refer to our article. we wrote that in response to that attack, in all likelihood, senator mccain and senator lieberman in

barack obama voted against john roberts and samuel alito and a 3 are saying we don't feel any obligationo vote in favor of barack obama's nominees. host: next up is new jersey on our line for independents. you're on with david savage of the "los angeles times." caller: good morning. guest: good morning, james. caller: i have a question about the ethnic makeup of the court. i'd like your guest to comment on the fact that there are three jues, and i don't believe there are any protestant men on the court. what impact this may have on their decisionmaking? guest: i do not know the answer to that. it is clearly in a sense unusual, based on american history, as you probably know. and most of american history it was all white protestant men and there was a big deal when there was a catholic nominee and then a jewish justice. in 1816 ten the first avenue can american -- and in 1816, and then the first african-american justice. we have six catholic justices. and now three jewish justices, and no protestants. i don't know how it's going to play out. it does seem that religion is just not the divi

>> accding to the response justice alito wre, he said i should have complained after the first paycheck,hat i received that was discriminatory, even though i didn't know that, and no way to prove it. >> so i was wondering, and i know justice ginsburg, something i talked to solicitor general kagan about this, was i suppose, you would have had to be rifling through the drawers of looking at pay stubs or asking your fellow employees how much they were making? is that what you were supposed tt do? >> well, i was supposed to do that in order to find out. and had i ne that i would have been fired. >> right. so i think one of the reasons your case, in addition to the obvious wrongs that were righted by the law that we passed in congress, but i think one of the things that interested me about yr case was it was just an example of you, who never thought you'd end up here in the halls of congress, nor i think did any of the other witnesses here. i can see them shaking their heads at the end and wondering if it that fun, anyway, to be here, but what strikes me mo about your case is that you just h

thomas and alito and sotomayor, and kennedy is the swing vote. if you look at their recent decisions, especially dating back to 2007 with the decision up in connecticut where -- the taxpayers had the purpose of giving it to developers to provide greater taxes. this is extremely unconstitutional. it would hardly be considered a conservative decision. so this leftist we into our court is eroding our rights and our liberties. and to believe that the rubbish that the "the new york times" prints, you have to be consumed with the koolaid of the left. the accord is presently assisting this administration in eroding our constitutional right, and it has to be corrected. host: the new york post this morning, a follow-up story that occurred just before the weekend started on representative charles wang colorado. rangel. he said he did not want any special breaks and he will face ethics procedures because it is the thing to do. "maybe, just maybe, i have evidence that i hit is not substantive." they are working on a deal that could forestall thursday's annou

. -- justice alito. this is one of those moments for congress to show restraint. i prepared my statement in this regard in march of this year in the form of an article that the former chief judge of the third circuit and i wrote that appeared in the "national law journal." with your indulgence i will refer to it now because it pretty much summarizes what i think is the right approach and what i think is the wrong approach. this was written primarily in response to an approach recommended by the charges that were leveled by the brookings institution which faulted congress for failing to act by writing a detailed code that the specified procedures that courts should use in deciding who at guantanamo bay may be lawfully detained. we wrote this piece because of our concern that i mentioned earlier, about congressional action where it is not necessary and where it may well be the likelihood that things could become more mobile -- muddled. so i will refer to our article. we wrote that in response to that attack, in all likelihood, senator mccain and senator lieberman in