six, seven, and nine. >> samuel alito is in hawaii at the moment. clarence thomas isn't there either. >> and, of course, senior members of the armed services as well. >> although it's a laundry list of things the president wants to get done, it all gets united under sort of an arc, a theme. what is the theme this year, mike? >> well, i think, you know, if there are three words or four words, it's he wants to win the future. which both suggests that it's a contest and a battle heading forward. >> there's the vice president and sir john boehner, the newly elected speaker of the house on the other side of the political aisle. he will now address the house and the nation. in his second state of the union address. barack obama, american's 44th president, getting ready. to put his views into words and his hopes and visions. this is where some of the key members have been positioned. >> it is my privilege and distinct honor of presenting the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. everybody, please have a seat. thank you

gracious apology and would like to thank him for it and would like to table item 59. >> supervisor alito peer, made a motion and seconded by supervisor dufty. colleagues, can we do that without objection? without objection item 5 will be tabled. item 60. >> item 60 is a resolution supporting the kpfa morning show. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you, colleagues. i would like to actually have this voted on today. i'm a long term listener and member of kpfa radio, probably over a decade and i've been an aindividual listener. -- the avid listener. the morning show brings coverage to a lot of the issues concern to us and our constituents across the bay area and the world. i can't think of a better source of information to provide the constituents with knowledge what's happening around the world. so it's difficult for me to see the station having such difficulty. i would agree with mr. brooks who spoke at public comment and said there's been disruption at the station much earlier. yes, there has. but this latest layoffs of the morning show and cancellation of the morning show created even grea

alito has voted in favor more frequently than any other justice in criminal cases. he's a former prosecutor and has been most pro prosecution just as there is an argument that he is by no means has o'connor libertarian instruments. the difficulty is this is a court that is closely divided in the fourth amendment cases and tends to side against the fourth amendment claims. this is in part not only because of the emplacement of the alito and, but justice breyer for all of his many virtues is no fan of stricken down unreasonable searches he tends to favor the government and vince or backward to applaud searches and he is by no means a sure vote either. a piece that might be relevant is the bond case from a few years ago involving the inspection of luggage on a bus and a majority of the quarter think it was a closely divided decision written by rehnquist of all people who is more of a state's right for the amendment guy said people on buses expect to have their luggage touched or brushed by accident but not letting the interests of the fondled, basically that is too muc

alito has voted in favor more frequently than any other justice in criminal cases. he's a former prosecutor and has been most pro prosecution just as there is an argument that he is by no means has o'connor libertarian instruments. the difficulty is this is a court that is closely divided in the fourth amendment cases and tends to side against the fourth amendment claims. this is in part not only because of the emplacement of the alito and, but justice breyer for all of his many virtues is no fan of stricken down unreasonable searches he tends to favor the government and vince or backward to applaud searches and he is by no means a sure vote either. a piece that might be relevant is the bond case from a few years ago involving the inspection of luggage on a bus and a majority of the quarter think it was a closely divided decision written by rehnquist of all people who is more of a state's right for the amendment guy said people on buses expect to have their luggage touched or brushed by accident but not letting the interests of the fondled, basically that is too muc

justice alito shook his head. it became a big deal. here is william livinggood who is the house sergeant of arms. he is now going to announce the president. ( applause ) >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. ( applause ) >> lehrer: mark, this is the magic moment for many members of the house in particular who like to be seen shaking the president's hand. it doesn't matter who the president is. coming down this aisle for this event. >> congresswoman sheila jackson is not there because she's seriously ill. and congresswoman... congressman eliot ingall of new york. >> lehrer: behind the president is the escort committee. that's the leadership of the congress of the united states. senator mitch mcconnell who is the minority leader of the senate. ñ and congressman ingall who is always there on the aisle. right to the president's left behind his shoulder is eric cantor who is the house majority leader, the republican leader behind the speaker john boehner. speaker john boehner, of course, will be presiding over this joint sessi

. >> justice alito, i think that is precisely how you should look at it. we would be comfortable with that. it's clear to me that except in the hypertechnical way that you articulate because of the way the contract disputes that that the government is unquestionably the moving party. >> i think it is questionable, mr. phillips, for this reason. you say it is an implied term of this contract and that the government has a duty to share certain information. you are seeking to enforce that implied term of the contract. it seems to me, as to that alleged to the, you are the moving party. >> that is one way to argue -- one way to articulate it. the other way is more consistent with the reality. the government is making a claim for $1.35 billion on the basis that we did not act in a timely fashion. that is the only thing. our answer to that claim is to say -- no, we are not at fault for the delays because you did not provide us the information or you did not spare us the burden of having to go down this path. >> then you go on to say -- moreover, give us the paym

then there is judge alito and judge roberts, the pro-business conservatives who tend to side with the- i do not think they are anti-health care. figuring out where they will come down and whether judge scalia will come down is difficult. all the cross currents of conservative legal thought may needs in this case and it makes it hard to predict. host: lexington, kentucky. napoleon. caller: hello. i wanted to say thanks for c- span. what i would like to say is a light to offer my condolences to the people hurt in arizona. this has been building up to this thing for a while. i remember back when the president's first got elected. some of the -- in washington, there were memos from the tea party in bringing guns to the rally. i was wondering, why or how could we even think of -- why would anyone think of bringing a gun to a rally if they have a grievance with the government? guest: bringing guns to a rally -- i gather it is legal in arizona to carry concealed weapons. this giant bought his weapon legally. if congress -- this gentleman his weapont legally. it restricts the places that they

justice alito shook his head. it became a big deal. here is william livinggood who is the house sergeant of arms. he is now going to announce the president. ( applause ) >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. ( applause ) >> lehrer: mark, this is the magic moment for many members of the house in particular who like to be seen shaking the president's hand. it doesn't matter who the president is. coming down this aisle for this event. >> congresswoman sheila jackson is not there because she's seriously ill. and congresswoman... congressman eliot ingall of new york. >> lehrer: behind the president is the escort committee. that's the leadership of the congress of the united states. senator mitch mcconnell who is the minority leader of the senate. ñ and congressman ingall who is always there on the aisle. right to the president's left behind his shoulder is eric cantor who is the house majority leader, the republican leader behind the speaker john boehner. speaker john boehner, of course, will be presiding over this joint sessi

. >> i am interrupting justice alito because you need to his question quickly. it is your position that if we determine your the moving party, you lose? >> no -- >> he asked whether we apply reynolds. he did not say which part of reynolds. are you conceding that if we apply reynolds and we find you what the moving party that you lose? >> absolutely not. i don't think it says if the government is the moving party is an automatic loss. i think there is no reason whatsoever for the court -- >> i don't know that moving party means who comes into court first. in the context of a contract dispute, i would say the moving party is the party who is trying to use the principles of law to change the contract. and that is the government here. the government is blowing the whistle. the government is saying you are in default, and under the laws of default, we could walk away, and indeed we can claim the money we have already paid. that seems to me the moving party in the context of the contract. >> i think it is important to add, using legal principles in a federal court. th

. >> well, justice alito, i think it would be difficult to determine objectively -- >> the police say i don't want to get a warrant. it's such a bore. we have other things to do. i have a great idea. let's knock at door. and then as long as he starts moving around, i know what he's doing into the bathroom means. and we'll hear that and we'll be able to get in. hey, great idea. okay. now suppose that's -- >> i think there's already a significant risk built into the 4th amendment that police officers, if they knock on the door and don't hear somebody destroying evidence inside, they are going to have to leave and get a warrant. i think that's enough. >> you don't know that they are destroying evidence unless you have reasonable to believe that there's contraband inside. i mean the hypothetical is an unrealistic one. they knock on the door. somebody moves inside. >> no, no, i mean to add, and, in fact, there's probable cause. he smelled the marijuana. i was just trying to stick to the relevant point. >> that's a different hypothetical. >> okay. add that. >> they knock on every door under

. >> your honor, as justice alito asked my -- my colleague earlier, the -- the whole concept of -- of "person" as including a corporation would surprise many people, the proverbial person on the street. >> yes. i'm not talking about that. i'll grant you that -- that "personal" could refer to a corporation, although the government distinguishes it by etymology and so forth. never mind that. i'm talking about personal privacy. do you have any examples from the new york times, from, you know, boswell, from anywhere, that anybody refers to the interests of a corporation as the "personal privacy" of general motors? i cannot imagine somebody using the phrase like that. >> your honor, we're -- we're not aware of that phrase being used certainly in any statutory context -- >> but you were about to give a second example of where, even though it hasn't, "personal privacy" hasn't been used. but you said one example is the two officials who are saying unpleasant things about a regulator; and what was your other example? >> well, there's a -- there's a sub-example within that category which is the

will we be ruled by the radical alito -- elite? we need to understand we need bold moves. >> we need a statement that says you are glad to be home. >> i am glad to be home? >> i know it is shocking, but i appear to be part of the conversation for 2012. there has been no discussion of candidacy, but i want to be part of fat. -- to be a part of that. that is the policies, unless we repeal many of his bad pieces of legislation, i believe that will lead us to becoming a nation on the client region -- on decline. >> what is going to help you out as you make the decision? my focus is on what we need to be talking about over the next 12 months. >> for the reference to slavery, did you want to clarify? >> i thought i was very clear. it was bondage as a nation, and we do not want to be slaves to decline. >> i wonder if you want to elaborate on what makes health care reform socialized medicine. >> ultimately we will see a collapse of the private insurance industry. that is very important to the des moines area. if we see a collapse of the pr

then there isudge alito and judge roberts, the pro-business conservatives who tend to side with the -- i do not think they are anti-health care. figuring out where they will come down and whether judge scalia will come down is difficult. all the cross currents of conservative legal thought may needs in t >> and what that conversation on line at cspan video.org. the flag across the capitol and across the country is at half staff in honor of the victims and the memory of the victims of the saturday shooting incident -- in tucson. outside the office of gabrielle giffords, a look as people have come by to offer their good wishes andropov flowers. the house chaplain has been bipartisan. also has been set up in the cannon house office building, this is the rotunda. a guest book is being set up for members and congressional staff and park visitors as well to sign in honor of gabrielle giffords. let's update you on our schedule. at 3:45 eastern, we will be live in export governor jan brewer for her address to the state legislature. that is live coverage at 3:45. the house is coming in this we

you can take justice alito off the list because he has a longstanding teaching engagement and hawaii. we can scratch off scalia and thomas from the guest list -- h a he said it is a juvenile spectacle. anthony kennedy seems to like the palm been circumstances but the not like the president's shot last year -- he wrote the decision. what about the four liberals? ruth bader ginsburg, steven briar, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan? firstill be kagan's chance as a new justice. if kennedy stays home and the four liberals decide to go, what this chief justice roberts do? does not get wide justices go to the state of the union in the first place? he criticized the and then for having degenerated into a political pep rally. as -- may decide to buy the bullet. he has to consider it -- consider the reputation of the court and how it is perceived. with four liberals going and no conservatives, it could be interpreted as a political statement, that could be especially start this year when lawmakers are bucking the tradition to sit together in peace and harmony. a breakdown of who will be sitting t

justice alito has the attention of the court this morning. >> this is our moment because grab the copies of the opinions and go rushing through. the guy from reuters is always the most pushy to get through because he wants to get on the wire service. you better get out of his way. the rest of us dictate or write. >> you remain with the issues on monday. >> here. >> the supreme court public information office simply says, here is the material, make of it what you will. we will make sure that you have the material and that's -- and that's an enormously invaluable function. it is also very nice not to have the sense that somebody is trying to spin you. i had to go up and want to hear the opinion announced from the bench. i like the pageantry of that. i like to hear the justice himself or herself announce what is in the opinion. then i race down the stairs 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 the internet site. readers really want to know as soon as possible what the court ruled and potentially what that m

>> well, moving party, i think is not a self-defined concept, just alito. >> they were the plaintiffs. and the review scheme that you outlined was reviewed beforehand. why do we need to look at that? >> the review scheme says that the 1986 in the case the federal circuit said the filing, the mire files of a complaint immediately vacates the contracting officers rule. our understanding at the time that we entered into the agreement if there was a problem with the way the contracting officer operated we would be allowed to file the claim and take the rule off of the table. under to circumstances, all we're asking for is to go back to the status quo in that information which means there's no contracting officer, there's no bases on which the government can make the claim of $1.35 billion. >> when you explain that, i thought that was not progress payment based on completed work. government says that money was advanced. you had not complied with what was necessary to comply with to get that $1.35 million and distinguish the $1.35 million that you received as a progress payment. the next th

245a, we can't know one way or the other.ai and so -- >> could i, could i, i'm interrupting justice alitobecause you answered his question very quickly. if we determine you're theitio moving party, you lose? >> no, i think -- >> is that what your answer to him which is that he asked you whether we apply reynolds. he didn't say which part of reynolds. whi are you conceding that if we apply reynolds and we findding you're the moving party, you lose? >> oh, absolutely not, justicelo sotomayor. i don't think reynolds says that if government is the moving party, it's an automatic loss. i think that's a back-up argument that we have advanced e in our brief that i think therep is no reasonar whatsoever for the -- >> let's talk about moving party. i don't, i don't know that moving party means who comeson' into court first. i would, i would -- in the context of a contract dispute i would say the moving party isf the party who is trying to uses principles of law to change the contract. and that's the government here. the government, the government is blowing the whistle. it is the government which

. >> i am interrupting justice alito because you need to his question quickly. it is your position that if we determine your the moving party, you lose? >> no -- >> he asked whether we apply reynolds. he did not say which part of reynolds. are you conceding that if we apply reynolds and we find you what the moving party that you lose? >> absolutely not. i don't think it says if the government is the moving party is an automatic loss. i think there is no reason whatsoever for the court -- >> i don't know that moving party means who comes into court first. in the context of a contract dispute, i would say the moving party is the party who is trying to use the principles of law to change the contract. and that is the government here. the government is blowing the whistle. the government is saying you are in default, and under the laws of default, we could walk away, and indeed we can claim the money we have already paid. that seems to me the moving party in the context of the contract. >> i think it is important to add, using legal principles in a federal court. th

alito will only two justices and their staff, you can hear from all of the current justices and recent elena kagan. we will take another look at recent developments in the court. tomorrow on "the washington journal" we have several guests. glenn frosh will join us along with andr

but perhaps the worst aspect of the alito opinion, it's gratuitous reaffirmation of the gun control that were not in any either. what can we expect in the future? my own guess is that we'll see a great many poorly reasoned, lower court decisions, largely upholding various kinds of gun control regulations. and we'll see an occasional intelligence effort to apply a sound legal analysis within the limits imposed by heller and mcdonald. there will probably be some victories for second amendment rights in the lower courts and maybe we'll see some eventually in the supreme court as well. what i do expect, however, are any victories for the originalist approach to the constitutional interpretation, at least in the supreme court. if the jurisprudence in the second amendment goes in the direction that i hope it will go, it'll have to be at least because five justices recognized the social value of the free citizens right to keep and bear arms. if they get to liking this right as much as they like the right of free speech, the second amendment will be in good shape. i don't think there are an awfu

and conservatives and if supreme court, with the president condemning one of their rules and justice alito, visibly disagreeing with him. how many justices will attend? how will the new speaker, john boehner, deal with the new spotlight? and beyond the official republican response from paul ryan, what's the deal with republican congress woman michele bachmann giving her own response on the tea party website? and officials briefed talking heads for their appearance on tv today. and the white house officials told the democrats to challenge republicans. what's their plan to govern? where do they want to cut spending, specifically? george? >> thanks, jake. >>> for more on the president's big speech tonight, we're joined by his senior adviser from the white house, valerie jarrett. good morning, ms. jarrett. how are you today? >> good morning, george. terrific, terrific. it's a great day. >> we're seeing all kinds of bipartisan pairs tonight. will you have a republican today? >> you know what that's a very good question. i'd love to have one. i think it's symbolism. what's really important is wh

anyone thinks, controls we the people or the pligs, the killer corporations judge roberts and judge alito saying "the people." that is a turning point. the second story to come out of this so-called "great recession" with millions of people losing their jobs. i think the second story, we had this $800 billion stimulus and what wasn't pointed out enough is that corporate u.s.a. had a $2 trillion anti-stimulus. corporate u.s.a. ask sitting on $2 trillion. i don't consider that accidental. i consider that intentional to stop people from being hired and brought back into the work force. host: other stories in the news this morning, their lead story crucial this morning beginning for afghanistan. larry king reporting from -- laura king reporting from kabul writes a troop build up in 2010 was meant to blunt the momentum of the taliban insurgencey in afghanistan. now it is 2011 that has become the make-or-break year over there. u.s. and nato officials have sought to put a positive base on the last 12 months of fighting, citing significant military gains in the southern heartland. a concerted cam

but perhaps the worst aspect of the alito opinion is it's entirely gratuitous reaffirmation of heller's irresponsible endorsement of vaous forms of gun control that were not at issue in either case. so what can we expect in the future. my own guess is that we'll see a great many poly reasoned, lower court decisions, largely upholding various kinds of gun control regulations. and we'll see an occasional intelligent effort to apply a sound legal analysis imposed by heller and mcdonald. there will probably be so victories for second amendment rights in the lower courts, and maybe we'll see some eventually in the supreme court as well. what i do not expect, however, are any victories for the originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. at least in the supreme court. if the jurisprudence of the second amendment goes in the direction that i hope it will go, it will have to be because at least five justices recognize the soal value of the free citizen's right to keep and bear arms. if they get to liking this ght, as much as they like the right of free speech, the second amendment wil

. >> your honor, as justice alito asked my -- my colleague earlier, the -- the whole concept of -- of "person" as including a corporation would surprise many people, the proverbial person on the street. >> yes. i'm not talking about that. i'll grant you that -- that "personal" could refer to a corporation, although the government distinguishes it by etymology and so forth. never mind that. i'm talking about personal privacy. do you have any examples from the new york times, from, you know, boswell, from anywhere, that anybody refers to the interests of a corporation as the "personal privacy" of general motors? i cannot imagine somebody using the phrase like that. >> your honor, we're -- we're not aware of that phrase being used certainly in any statutory context -- >> but you were about to give a second example of where, even though it hasn't, "personal privacy" hasn't been used. but you said one example is the two officials who are saying unpleasant things about a regulator; and what was your other example? >> well, there's a -- there's a sub-example within that category which is the

judge alito, and why can't i think of her name? yeah, kagan.kagan. >> okay. >> who was colleague at the white house. you know, you really only have a handful of members votes on the other side of the aisle. that's why i said, the effort has to be on those in the middle. keeping those of your party who you should get, but -- excuse me, persuading some on the other side that they should do it too. they should support you too, which is increasingly difficult. but again we talked about choices that the president has to make of where he wants to play the ball game, so i think it was also referred to what sort of -- what sort of leader is john boehner? what sort of speaker is john boehner going to be or mitch mcconnell? will they perceive it's not interest to get something done. in which case legislative affairs is going to be successful. by their own -- some of their biggest friends on the democratic side. so but as you develop your legislative, you know, strategy being aware of and being able to tap into, you know, the change in dynamics between th

all that it can be to help businesses -- e- verify all that it can be to help businesses employ a alito work force. we will continue to conduct -- employ of legal work force. we will continue to conduct audits to ensure that businesses are following the law. we will also grant citizenship to record numbers of military service members. we are developing an automated of vetting capability that will enable us to immediately address national security risks at the outset, and we will roll out the e-verify self check, which will enable workers to check their own employment authorization status. finally, we're beginning a transition from a paper-based system to an electronic case management system for immigration, which will enable us to reap a plethora of benefits we have not had before. now, while border enforcement and counter-terrorism have been long standing challenges to our security, we also face some new and emerging ones. let me move onto cyber security and science and technology. over the past two years, we have increased our capacity to fight cyber crimes and cyber terrorism, openin

both justice roberts and justice alito worked for the chamber. justice roberts supported unanimity.se business decisions are most likely unanimous. 80% of these business cases are unanimous. most of them are decided in a pro-business direction. pro-business conservatives are at odds with the libertarians and >> power -- tea party people when it comes to power. their job is to represent the interests of american business. they saw the failure of banks as an existential threat. they will use doctrines like federal pre-emption that business favors because it provides a uniform national rules to thwart states' rights. you are going to see clashes between the pro-business conservatives and the tea party people in the next congress over questions like firm subsidies -- farm subsidies. we will also see that clash working itself out on the supreme court. they are expected to hear the health-care cases as early as next year. i was talking with someone about whether the court will strike down health care. neither one of us is confident about that either way. i would like to talk about that in