when senator cardin finishes his opening statement, no pressure own, senator cardin, but when you finish your opening statement, we will take a ten-minute break. senator cardin. >> thank you, chairman leahy. solicitor general kagan, welcome back to the judiciary committee. last year, i had the privilege of chairing your confirmation hearing for the position of solicitor general and while we had a spirited debate, i think we can agree we didn't have quite as much media attention at lost year's hearing. why is that? as i prepared for this had week's hearing, i have been thinking about the role of the supreme court and the constitution in our lives. many people may say to paraphrase our vice president, why is this such a big deal? why should i care? does the supreme court really impact my life or my family? if you have children, if you work for a living, if you're a woman, if you vote, if you care about the air we breathe or the water we drink, you need to pay close attention to the confirmation hearing and the work of the supreme court. the constitution has a very tangible impact on all ou

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 right in thinking that the push back against the ledbetter decision and congress is very surprisingly rapid overturning of that -- congress's very surprisingly rapid overturning of that sent some kind of signal to the court? what is your take on the way this court has been interpreting these cases? >> i wish i could say that i thought the reaction to the ledbetter case had been a wake- up call to the supreme court that actually cause an ideological shift. i think there may be a temptation to see it that way because of some of the anti- retaliation cases that the court has decided. they have decided several in connection with a number of discrimination statutes. those have been coming out favorably from the point of view of the employee. >> am i right, john, that retaliation claims are the most robust and rapidly growing claims in discrimination? >> there certainly have been a number of them. 88, 1981, 1982 -- ada, 1

with few exceptions, whether -- and i'm echoing senator cardin here, whether you're a worker, a pensioner, a small business owner, a woman, a voter, or a person who drinks water, your rights are harder to defend today than they were five years ago. my state has been victim to the third largest ponzi scheme in history, and yet, in 2008 in a case called stone ridge, the roberts court made it harder for investors to get their money back from people who defrauded them. the twin cities have more older workers per capita than almost any other city in the nation, and yet, in 2009, in the case called gross, the roberts court made it easier for corporations to fire older americans and get away with it. minnesota has more wetlands than all but three states, and yet in a case called rapanos, the court cut countless streams and wet loins out of the clean water act even though they had been covered for up to 30 years. minnesota banned all corporate spending in state and local elections in 1988, and yet any january in citizens united, the roberts court nullified our state laws and turned ba feral allow

cardinal scalea, he maintained that the only relevant inquiry was the intent of the founders of the roman empire. [laughter] nero, caligula, and so it was obvious to him that feeding the prisoners to the lions was ok as well. i grant that even though this is the majority view, there was some view at the time from people like the briars and people of the french way, that the courts consider the more humane customs of the american indians, the sub-saharan tribes, the igloo-bound eskimos, and the japanese samurai. even looking at the international landscape, it is clear that no nation then held that was sensible that a leader should sacrifice and endanger his own people for the sake of trading he mainly a murderous adversary. indeed, nobody thought that was the case until 600 years later the american courts first came to that conclusion. certainly, given that we are assessing the conduct of this in the year oo our lord 1415, it is quite clear that under the rules that existed, there was no need to give order to begin with. even under the most humane rule, the sole question was whether the ki

to me, this seems reminiscent of what the late cardinal of chicago talked about. it is increasingly going to be the kind of cluster of positions that the catholic church in the 21st century brings to engage in the issues of the day. second, the egos of catholicism in the south is heavily biblical and supernatural. it is the narrative universe and that all world of the bible. part of what that means is that things like miracles and wonders, feelings and revelations come at exorcisms, all of that stuff that in our culture cannot seem quaint or arcane or off-putting, this is very much part of the routine, daily meat and potatoes spiritual universe of the global sow. the supernatural is incrediily close. you can almost reach out and testetouch it. this has all kinds of practical consequences. how do you do health care in a culture in which the default interpretation of illness is not merely in terms of physical cause and effect but also the operation of maligned spirits. if you don't understand that people have a spiritual frame of reference for understanding their il

it is because, for several reasons -- the cardinal rule is that this story must change. secondly, the tea party benefits from enormous publicity now just because it is sort of a good story. it is almost surely true that the story is being overplayed. even if it only does as ll as you would have expected, the fact that it has gotten so much hype will make it seem otherwise. host: here is that this new book that points to polls that say that 70% of americs do not like the government getting involved and want more of a free enterprise-type government, which is what the tea party members argue as well. according to arthur brooks they do not want the government providing all these different social progress. can you just deal with the numbers that he's sites? guest: i can deal with those numbers easily. a hard thing is to deal with the fiscal numbers, those about what we really spend. those 7% of americans i do not think are being realistic. i think they have no idea about how the government is really spending their money -- those 70of americans, and what could be cut. there w

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 right in thinking that the push back against the ledbetter decision and congress is very surprisingly rapid overturning of that -- congress's very surprisingly rapid overturning of that sent some kind of signal to the court? what is your take on the way this court has been interpreting these cases? >> i wish i could say that i thought the reactioto the ledbetter case had been a wake- up call to the supreme court that actually cause an ideological shift. i think there may be a temptation to see it that way because of some of the anti- retaliation cases tha the court has decided. they have decided several in connection with a number of discrimination statutes. those have been coming out favorably from the point of view of the employee. >> am i right, john, that retaliation claims are the most robust and ridly growing claims in scrimination? >> there certainly have been a number of them. 88, 1981, 1982 -- ada, 1981, 19

[applause] ben cardin could not be here, but he is wonderful, too, so give him a round of applause.aughter] [applause] and we have u.s. representative chris van hollen here, and u.s. representative don edwards. [applause] and i want you to know that they have fought hard on behalf of seniors and on behalf of this health care bill. and i could not be happier to be joined by them. i want to thank fran for joining her -- sharing her story with us. and i want to thank everyone who has joined us at the senior center. there are a lot of people listening and watching across america, so i appreciate you as well. i am looking forward to taking questions, but first, i want to say few brief words about the bill we pass a couple months back and what it means for senior citizens. it is hard to imagine today, but just two generations ago, millions of our seniors went without basic health care coverage. it was not right. it is not reflective of our values and who we are. rather than allow that reality to continue, we made a promise to america's seniors that you can live out your golden years with

it is because, for several reasons -- the cardinal rule is that this story must change.secondly, the tea party benefits from enormous publicity now just because it is sort of a good story. it is almost surely true that the story is being overplayed. even if it only does as well as you would have expected, the fact that it has gotten so much hype will make it seem otherwise. host: here is that this new book that points to polls that say that 70% of americans do not like the government getting involved and want more of a free enterprise-type government, which is what the tea party members argue as well. according to arthur brooks they do not want the government providing all these different social progress. can you just deal with the numbers that he's sites? guest: i can deal with those numbers easily. a hard thing is to deal with the fiscal numbers, those about what we really spend. those 7% of americans i do not think are being realistic. i think they have no idea about how the government is really spending their money -- those 70% of americans, and what could be cut. th

[applause] ben cardin could not be here, but he is wonderful as well.ase give him a round of applause. [laughter] we have a u.s. representative here. and u.s. representative don edwards. [applause] of want to let you know that they fought hard on behalf of seniors and this health care bill. i could not be proper to be joined by them. federal want to thank france for sharing her story with us. a want to thank everybody who has joined us here at the holland park senior center. thereeare a lot of people listening and watching all across america. i appreciate all of you as well. i am looking forward to taking some of your questions. i want to say a few brief words about the affordabbe care that we passed a few months back and what it means for a new american seniors. just a couple of generations went without basic health care. millions. it was not right. it was not reflective of our values and who we are. rather than allow that reality to continue, we made a promise to america's seniors. you can live out your golden years with basic peace of mind and health