justice elena kagan: justice scalia is right. i am assuming that a letter disposing of a ruling in a capital case issued after 18 months when nobody knew that that letter was coming, that that's an important letter for a death row person to get. so justice scalia is right to that effect. so you get this, and you say, well, you would have. but that's the question we have to ask about the clerk as well. the clerk -- the question for the clerk is, if he had really wanted the person to get notice, what would he have done? mr. neiman jr.: no, your honor, i disagree. the -- as far back as mullane, this court has said that at the end of the day actual notice to a party, particularly within the jurisdiction, is the finish line for due process purposes. mullane expressly-- justice samuel alito: you concede from these questions that the arguments that you are making in this capital case, which is sui generis, are pushing the court to consider rules that would have far- reaching effect, such as a rule that places upon a clerk of the court a

the same thing with elena kagan. she said at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case or what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent line, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arizona about the immigration law. you also have a very

the same thing with elena kagan. she said at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case or what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent line, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arizona about the immigration law. you also have a very

the same thing with elena kagan.aid at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case or what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent line, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arizona about the immigration law. you also have a very simila

one step further, a elena kagan at that time solicitor general arguing the case and i am sure this is not an answer she thought of five spurred the moment the one justice said it is broad enough to commit -- with the humanitarian law project, a could data cover a lawyer filing a brief? >> host: it was one of the facts in the case itself. >> she said yes. i think that is too broad park ave does have the power to a think barack obama will prosecute lawyers? no. but. >> and just to be fair, i do agree the statute is historic the bride and the supreme court recognizes that it is as broad as it has seen but to be fair if there are unconstitutional applications that discount the fact that it does harm by its mere existence about a but the power is there and the statute of limitations allow people to be prosecuted by future the administration for things they're doing now. plus president obamacare colder to determine the agencies and those below them. >> host: they are responsible for their own actions and the further compelling part is how the very thinly veiled disappointment that you portr

i have talked about with others, justice roberts, elena kagan. it is the same service sensation than the first argument. it is very memorable. >> what happened to the case you>> i lost. no, i lost. it is not an earthshaking case. justification. >> what has it been like for you since you left? and why did you write the book? >> it is a story that group by itself. when i left the court, i was invited to attend a fairly large amount of informal sessions. like the rotary. there are groups in arlington and elsewhere. i was repeatedly asked tell us differ? it just stuck. people seem to be interested in possible differences of the different chiefs. then i looked back further. and looked back, and i had some contact. it is not as intensive. the idea came to me that there may be a fair amount of interest in talking about the chiefs. i remember talking to john roberts about the same time. i thought the public did not have a full understanding of all the work. there are a fair number of additional responsibilities that might be of interest. i thought it wou

there was some anxiety as to whether elena kagan would be confined to that or not. when michelle obama chose to wear bare legs and bear arms, we are still having anxiety about that. and it is such anxiety about the appearance, and it seems to me that it all boiled down to the anita hill question, which was not really about did i wear the right thing, but ultimately, what is credibility look like? what do we have to wear, what we have to do to be believed? in that spirit, i wanted to turn to who anita hill is despite the choice of what to wear. you can certainly read her bio in the materials. she graduated from the university of oklahoma and yale law school in 1980 and was put into the spotlight in 1991 and all the rest of history. but there is a back history that is worth telling, or at least for grounding, because it did not take clarence thomas to make her a pioneer or heroin. long before she was a pioneer and a heroine. she began teaching in 1983. there were virtually no women or women of color teaching anywhere. she and i both teach contracts and commercial law.

the same thing with elena kagan. she said at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case o what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent le, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arina about the immigration law. you also have a very simil

i talked about this with john ruth bader ginsburg and elena kagan. it is the same service sensation than the first argument. it is very memorable. >> what happened to the case you are arguing? did you win? >> i lost. it is not an earthshaking case. they did decide question of statutory construction under the justification defense. >> you served 34 years on the court. what has it been like for you since you left, and why did you write the books? >> it is a story that group by -- that grew by itself. when i left the court, i was invited to attend a fairly large amount of informal sessions. where i talked to smaller groups like the rotary. there are groups in arlington and elsewhere. i was repeatedly asked tell us, you served with three chief justices. how they were alike and how they differ? people seem to be interested in possible differences of the different chiefs. then i looked back further. i thought i had some contacts with five. the idea came to me that there may be a fair amount of interest in talking about the chiefs. in fact, andi remember ta

at the oral argument, elena kagan the solicitor general in the case, one of the justices said to her it is broad enough to cover the humanitarian law project to try to teach terrorists not to be terrorists could that ever cover a -- >> host: one of the facts in the case itself in one of the earlier iterations. >> guest: it was. she said yes it would cover lawyers. i think that is too abroad. the government has the power over everybody. i think that barack obama is going to prosecute lawyers or eric holder, malae don't but this has a tremendous chile and -- >> host: one thing just to be fair i do agree that the statute is very broad and the supreme court recognizes this and says it's about as broad a statute as it has seen nevertheless as unconstitutional on its face. to be fair if there are unconstitutional applications come in be used in order to punish unconstitutional conduct the unconstitutional the application is always the defense -- >> guest: it didn't work so well for samuel hussain he denied the claim and dismissed the prosecution plus i think the discount the fact the statu

think about the vote for elena kagan, who was supreme unqualified for the job. she had many more negative votes because the division was on party lines. sunday, we will get back to the way -- some day, we will get back to the way it was. but it will take people on both sides of the aisle, who care to make government work, to the fact that change. i should say, by the way, the white house people were quite worried about my aclu and affiliation, in what they called murder boards, preparation for the hearing. people in the white house staff would take the part of various senators and ask me questions. the question would be run this way. you were on the aclu board in the year 1976. in that year, a past -- they passed that resolution. did you vote for it? i said, stop. i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. a neighbor grudgingly gave up. -- they begrudgingly gave up. and there was not a single question from republican or democrat, about the work that i had done with the aclu. that would not happen today. >> if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the

. >> elena kagan and thomas have recaused themselves from health care reform debate citing personal conflict. reporting live stacy cohen back to you. >>> all right thank you. >>> anti wall street protests, continue in new york city's financial district. several hundred of these occupy wall street demonstrators have been there several weeks they are protesting the concentration of wealth in this nation. 700 protestors were arrested, blocking a lane of the brooklyn bridge. geralda riviera spoke to them. >> do you think something can come of this? >> something has come of this we have been here two weeks, a lot of people are not leaving. we have to go to work a couple days, before we come back but corralling us on the brooklyn bridge and jailing us is not going to happen >> they eat donated fo their laptops running with a portable generator and have a makeshift hospital they are growing in numbers, getting more organized and showing no signs of quitting. >>> republican presidential candidate, herman cane criticizing rick perry saying he should have removed a racially charged name from a rock, p

knocconservatives are urging js moments of clarence issues elena kagan to reduce herself because theytoo involved with the bill on the inside of the administration when she was president obama's solicitor general. liberals are trying to get justice clarence thomas to reduce himself from healthcare arguments because they say his wife was paid to fight against it. contentious arguments already. today that was set aside for a red mass in washington, d.c. they have the service every single year the day before the supreme court starts. the justices were there. the idea was to pray for the justices to have guidance as they navigate what might become one of their most important terms in years. >> getting ready for tomorrow. >> um-h'm. s that, peter. 26 states are hoping the supreme court will see their side of the healthcare case and rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. leading that fight is general greg abbott. thank you for your time today. >> good afternoon, shannon. >> shannon: there are several appeals throughout. the one that you are are involved with, the 26 states ar

think of the vote for elena kagan.iveany more votes because they were voting along party lines. it will take people on both sides of the aisle with a sense to really care to make government work. i should say, by the way, that the white house people were quite worried about my aclu affiliation and what they called the preparation for "murder boards." people in the white house staff would play the part of different senators and the questions would be around this way. "you were in the aclu board in the year 1976. in that year, they passed these resolutions. did you vote for them?" i said , "stop." i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. grudgingly, they gave up and there was not a single question asked by any center -- senator about the work that i had done with the aclu. that would not happen today. >> gone with the wind. if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the bench assuming that all of your colleagues would magically agree, what would that they be? >> it is hard to pick just one. [laughter] i would

think of the vote for elena kagan who superbly qualified for the child and she had many more negative vote because the division was on party lines. sunday, we will get back to the way it once was, but it will take people on both sides of the aisle was sent to really care of making government work to affect that change. i should say privately that the white house people were quite worried about my aclu affiliation and what they call murder boards, preparation for the hearing. people in the white house staff would take the part of various senators and ask a question and the questions it be, run this way. you run the aclu board in the year 1976. and in that year, the past that resolution. did you vote for it? i said stop because i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. and so, they grudgingly gave up. and there was not a single question asked by any senator, republican or democrat about the work i attended the aclu. that would not happen to me. >> if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the bench and assuming all of your colleagues would magically agree, what would that cou

think of the vote for elena kagan who superbly qualified for the child and she had many more negative vote because the division was on party lines. sunday, we will get back to the way it once was, but it will take people on both sides of the aisle was sent to really care of making government work to affect that change. i should say privately that the white house people were quite worried about my aclu affiliation and what they call murder boards, preparation for the hearing. people in the white house staff would take the part of various senators and ask a question and the questions it be, run this way. you run the aclu board in the year 1976. and in that year, the past that resolution. did you vote for it? i said stop because i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. and so, they grudgingly gave up. and there was not a single question asked by any senator, republican or democrat about the work i attended the aclu. that would not happen to me. >> if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the bench and assuming all of your colleagues would magically agree, what would that cou