you know, and that seems strange to us today because today for the -- well, since elena kagan came on the court that's no longer true, but leading right up to elena kagan's nomination for the first time in american history we had a supreme court all of whose members had as the most recent line on their resuÉe having been a federal appeals court judge. the framers would have found that remarkable because they really envisioned the supreme court being drawn from the heart of american life, american political life. the last justice we had who actually held herself out to the people for elective office was justice o'connor who had been majority leader of the arizona state senate. and she, her jurisprudence was unique on the court at that time, and i think it had a lot to do with pragmatic sense of getting down to it and getting things done that she was nurtured in her, by the fact that she had been an elected office holder. so that's certainly been a change. there's, obviously, been a change in religion on the court. it's quite remarkable, though, when justice stevens retired two years ag

elena kagan, highly accomplished mainstream nominee, was bothered by the whole business of harvard law school not allowing military recruiters to be lawyers in the military. as if she made up that policy. it was a standard policy of the law school trade association. all were supposed to behave that way. it was 90 elena kagan creation even fewer republicans voted for perth and soda might your one year earlier. so in the landscape of the senate confirmation is a battleground. both of the vacancies these are nine game change years. with those vacancies filled will not change. but one day it will. eventually all we'll leave but i have no idea when but a justice who holds a central position the day that nomination the game changer will have been. and have been when the was powell retired. rehab the titanic battle still going on today. it informs how we think about the nomination process. i personally hate to think of what will occur when that vacancy occurs. talk about the work battle, recent political events should make us rethink the take away which was a definition of the political mains

one of the justices is elena kagan who was barack obama's solicitor general. don't know if she would have done a better or worse job. if he had chosen another pick for his second supreme court nominee, she might well still be his solicitor general and she would have been arguing the case today instead of sitting on the other side of the bench. whether or not the obama administration in the long run will wish she was there, it is anybody's guess. >> you know this point. i've heard it before from the white house. one of the reasons why president obama was persuaded to appoint elena kagan to the supreme court baltimore he thought she could become a downer weight behind the scenes. do you buy that? >> i think it is a little overstated how much the justices really influence one another. the folks who are real experts i talked to say listen, scalia, kennedy, all these guys. and women for that matter. they are smart folks who have been legal minds for a very long time. they're not just waiting for somebody new to come in and change everything they think comfortable a

what you're about to here is justice elena kagan talking to paul clement.presents the states opposed to this law. here it is. >> prior anticipation. let me give you a hypothetical. suppose i'm and employer and i see someone i really like and i say i'm going to give you $10 million a year to come work for me. and the person says you know, i've never been offered anywhere approaching $10 million a year, of course i'm going to say yes to that. now, we would both agree that's not coercive, right? >> i guess i would want to know where the money came from. >> wow! wow! i'm offering you $10 million a year to come work for me and you're saying this is anything but a great choice? >> sure, if i told you actually it came from my own bank account. >> there were questions whether elena kagan should recuse herself. she decide shed didn't need to and so did the chief justice john roberts. the pope meeting fidel castro. we were talking about the tea leaves. do we have any idea what they talked about? >> we finally have confirmation after all the rumors and speculation ove

here's how justice elena kagan summed up the choice before the court today. >> and the question is always, does congress want half a loaf? is half a loaf better than no loaf? >> well, justice kagan, i think there are situations where half a loaf is actually worse. >> reporter:aul ement prests 2stat figing e afrdable care act. if the court declares the individual mandate is unconstitutional, clement says keeping the rest of the law makes no economic sense. the new marketplaces for insurance would not function well, and insurance companies would be saddled with huge costs. that hit home with justice anthony kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in the court's closest cases. >> we would be exercising the judicial power, if one act was... one provision was stricken and the others remained, to impose a risk on insuranccompies at coressad ner intended. by reason of this court, we would have a new regime that congress did not provide for, did not consider. that, it seems to me, can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike... than striking the whole.

the four liberals on the court, stephen breyer, ruth bader ginsburg and elena kagan tried to defend the law. 3 asked sympathetic questions of verrilli, challenging questions of clement and mike carvin. they did not look like they had a fifth vote in that courtroom. and you know, it takes five votes to win and look likes the conservatives have them. >> kate, you were inside the courtroom, the solicitor general donald verrilli, was he sort of stumbling, did he not have the right answers? did he seem unprepared and overly nervous in responding to the conservative justices' tough questioning? >> it's hard to get into his mind but i can say if you compare it to yesterday, he did -- he did appear to stumble more, almost seemed apologetic for some of the answers he was giving. there was a stark difference from his delivery yesterday as to compared to today. and jeff was talking about the conservative justices really going after and asking him tough questions. barely letting him finish his sentence before they piped in. looking over my notes as we wait for the audio. justice kennedy asking clea

if you want to let more women serve on the supreme court like elena kagan, then we are on the same team. if you want to see more women like hillary clinton over at the secretary of state being head of that office, then we are on the same team. if we want to see more me liz sahh and rachel on television telling our story, we are on the same team. >> if you want a fair pay act in your lifetime, we are on the seam team. >> if you want to see the tea party disappear, we are on the seam team. if you want to reach that 51% that you heard about this morning in the united states congress, then we are on the seam team. >> all right. if we want a congress that's responsive to our needs, then we are on the same team. if you want to keep title nine as our sister spoke about this morning, arlene, then we are on the same team. all right, if you want the equal rights amendment ever to happen, we are on the same team. if you want to put down deviciveness, you want to put down sexism. you want to put down homofob you, you want to put down action against people and not giving them fair opportunity who is

. >> reporter: that was liberal leaning justice elena kagan. there are two issues that they will take up today. one is what they call severability. if the justices strike down the individual mandate, do the rest of the provisions in the law such as requiring that health insurance companies offer insurance to everyone, things like that, if those could still stand and they will also be looking at the issue of medicaid. the states do expect that a lot of people who can't afford to buy health insurance will be forced on to the medicaid rolls and they say that may present an unfair burden to the state. back to you. >> thank you. >>> another big story this morning, members of congress rallying around the family of a florida teenager gunned down by aneighborhood watch captain. the parents ever trayvon martin testified in front of a group of lawmakers yesterday. elected leaders talked about several issues schug the stand your ground law, racial profiling, neighborhood watch programs and why the sanford police department has not arrested the shooter, ge

an interesting exchange between antonin scalia, elena kagan, sonia sotomayor, and one of the attorneysthe case in front of the supreme court. take a listen. >> you really want us to go through these 2,700 pages, and do you really expect a court to do that? or do you expect us to give this tucks to o function to our law clerks? is this not totally unrealistic that we are going to go through this item by item and decide each one? >> well -- >> you don't have to because -- >> that is correct, and i'd also like -- i just wanted to finish the thought i had about this being a matter of statutory interpretation. the court's task we submit is not to look at the legislative process to see whether the bill would have passed or not based on the political situation at the time, which would basically convert the court into a function such as a whip count -- >> and mr. kneedler, that would be a revolution in our severability law, wouldn't it? we've never suggested we're going to say, look, this legislation was a brokered compromise and we're going to try to figure out exactly what would have happene

. >> reporter: that is just elena kagan, one. those who sounds like she believes the individual mandate is constitutional. democrats and republican lawmakers, they were in there listening yesterday. many of them came out and talked about their feelings on what they heard. senator patrick leahy of vermont was one of those in there. he said that basically, democrats are concerned by the tough questioning. they believe that this is what the justices are supposed to do before issuing a ruling. they've got to ask the tough questions. one other thing that is very interesting is that the supreme court is releasing those audio recordings for everybody to be able to listen to shortly after the proceedings wrap up and that really is a signal of how important they know the decision in this case will be. back to you. >> certainly a fascinating look inside the u.s. supreme court. thank you. >>> also new, prince george's county police are verging a robbery and abduction in hyattsville. it happened late last night on 59th avenue. according to p

. >> elena kagan also has my daughter's name. >> the book is called "the world america made." you are also the author of a "paradise in power." >> how many have you written? >> 3. >> is it on its way to being a best-selling book? >> i hope. >> thank you for having me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> for a dvd call 1-877-662-776. these are also available as c- span podcasts. >> next, prime minister david cameron at the british house of commons. president obama and shimon peres speak at the american-israel public affairs conference. wednesday at the british house of commons -- commons, david cameron answered questions on corruption between the british press and police. allegations of corruption and bribery service during a british commission set up to examine the culture, practices, and ethics. the prime minister answered questions on changes to the national health service, the olympics, and ireland's decision to hold a referendum on the e.u. fiscal treaty. >> questions to the prime minister, mr.

. >> elena kagan also has my daughter's name. not a relation. >> the book is called "the world america made." you are also the author of a "paradise in power." >> how many have you written? >> 3. >> is it on its way to being a best-selling book? >> i hope. >> thank you for having me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> free dvd copy, a 1 call877- 662-7726. for free transcripts are to give us your comments about this program, visit us at www.q- and-a.org. "q & a" programs are also available as c-span podcasts. >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal," then republican presidential candidate rick santorum at any event in oklahoma and then at 12:00, u.s. house of representatives. legislative begin -- business begins at 2:00 p.m. >> i know it is popular to create a cyber-security infrastructure to oversee this and i think that is falling. the adversaries we're dealing with today are becoming more sophisticated. we talk about the advan

let's listen to an exchange about just that topic right now between justice elena kagan and attorney robert long. >> either buy insurance or pay a penalty... or pay a fee. but that's not the way the statute reads. congress, it must be supposed, you know, made a decision that that shouldn't be the way the statute reads, that it should instead be a regulatory command and a penalty attached to that command. >> i would not argue that this statute is a perfect model of clarity. but i do think the most reasonable way to read the entire statute is that it does impose a single obl sgags... obligation to pay a penalty if you are an applicable individual and you're not subject to an exemption. >> ifill: not a perfect model of clarity. even justice scalia was making that same point in this argument. how much does that affect what we're actually arguing about, the fact that everybody seemed to be muddling through the definitions. >> justice scalia pointed out that the court interprets very narrowly jurisdictional statutes, statutes that take away their power to review. he said it has to be clear

an antonin scalia or an elena kagan?the important that's important here. >> bill burton, good to see you again. thank you very much. >> thank you. >>> up next, the politico briefing. mitt romney's southern strategy. stay with us. . >>> who's the "your business" entrepreneur of the week. ana opened scribble press in 2008. it's a place where kids can turn their art and writing into books. the company's success prompted her to open another location in new york city. managing from 3,000 miles away has been a challenge, but she's invested with a group of moms. i'm phil mickelson, pro golfer. if you have painful, swollen joints, i've been in your shoes. one day i'm on top of the world... the next i'm saying... i have this thing called psoriatic arthritis. i had some intense pain. it progressively got worse. my rheumatologist told me about enbrel. i'm surprised how quickly my symptoms have been managed. [ male announcer ] because enbrel suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, somet

well, justice elena kagan and others asking how is a 90% funding of that expansion in medicaid, how in? the argument and answer from the states, they and argument from e states, they would lose if they chose not to participate in the expansion. all of the medicaid dollars going to existing programs. the federal government arguing that the medicaid program has been a voluntary program that states can opt in and out of. right now medicaid is about a $250 billion program over the next ten years as part of the affordable health care act. you're talking about in excess of $3 trillion. the other major headline of the day, the court taking up the question this morning of severability, should the entire health care law be stricten or just the mandate? the court leaning towards taking down the entire law. >> hampton, thank you very much. >>> just a moment ago on street signs, brian sat down for an exclusive interview with j.p. morgan jamie dimon. i felt like he said a lot of positive things, how he feels about the housing market. we have steve liesman and jim cramer here and diana olick. what d

guest: some people have argued that elena kagan should recuse herself. government will be putting forward but she is not recuse herself. host: charles from connecticut. caller: good morning. as far as the mandate thing, social security was originally this thing called social security contributions just to get around the tax angle. i would like to knowthe argument is always used about the automobile insurance. everybody does not own a car. is the next thing going to be an affordable dying thing? everybody does have to die. who else is going to afford it? once you're dead, you cannot pay for it. what follows next -- affordable transportation? affordable diet? guest: the issue with auto insurance is it is imposed by state governments. state governments are not limited to a list of enumerated powers. they are not constrained in the same way. if an individual mandate is upheld, then it is likely the same logic could be used to uphold a car-buying mandate. the defenders of the law say it will use health care at some point but we do not use the other products.

and if the four say that, if that elena kagan says that and a lot of academics, many of whom are conservative say that, and this is different than the house of representatives. so a lot will depend on the reasons they give and whether they're preposterous or not. >> preposterous is something that i feel like scalia says about something that every decision dunnett go his way. but prior doesn't usually say that. so to me, if it's 5-4, that won't be disheartening. but if it's 5-4 in a partisan way, it matters what five and what four. >> i want to talk more about that right after we take this break. c'mon dad! i'm here to unleash my inner cowboy. instead i got heartburn. [ horse neighs ] hold up partner. prilosec isn't for fast relief. try alka-seltzer. it kills heartburn fast. yeehaw! you see the gray. try root touch-up by nice 'n easy. just brush our permanent color matching creme right where you need it. then rinse. in ten minutes zap those grays and get on with your day. nice 'n easy root touch-up. >>> everybody has to buy food. so you define the market as food. therefore, everybody's in the

elena kagan and sonia sotomayor and ruth ginsberg bader, but the supreme court is not just these folksvery court before it means that the court is the whole history of the court going back to the first courts which were all of course male, white and presumably heterosexual, so let me suggest this that in order to get balance on the court, you'd have to have an entirely female court for say 100 years. and do that thought experiment with me, and keep pushing. imagine that every member of the court is not only a woman, but a woman of color, and imagine that not only every person on the supreme court is not only a woman, and a woman of color, but a woman, a woman of color and is gay, a lesbian. you would think they would all choose the same laws and they would always rule the same way, but my bet is in a court of all women of color who are identified gay, each decision of the court would contain the same complexity that behave seen with all white male supreme courts. talk about this, and other possibilities of how our identifies intersect with the structures i'm back with jessica vicente,

starting with the senior associate justice antonin scalia all of the way down to the newest justice elena kagan. if the chief justice is in the majority and he a signs the opinion, usually a few days later to one of the justices in the majority. if the chief justice is not in the majority, the senior associate justice in the majority assigns the opinion and then they start exchanging drafts. >> do the justices ever change their minds after this additional vote? >> they do, not often, but it does happen. no decision of the court is official until the day it's announced. so these votes that they take around the table are by definition, tentative votes because once the justices see the arguments laid out by their colleague, sometimes they change their minds. it doesn't happen a lot, maybe a couple of times a year, very rarely do the votes switch in a way that changes the outcome of the case, but it does happen now and then. >> are you still convinced, as you were this earlier in the week that the obama administration, as you said on tuesday faced a train wreck with, on wednesday, a plain wreck. yo

elena kagan was the solicitor general before she was appointed to the court.ld vir ril verrilli is new job. i think he was just nervous. i think you know, it was a high stakes argument and he didn't do well. as you point out none of these questions were shockers out of left field given how much this case has been discussed. even in the everyday world in which we operate, much less the very legally focused solicitor general's office. that's why it was such a surprise that he did so badly because none of these questions were so surprising to any one who followed this case. >> also -- >> we know that paul clement -- >> sorry. >> go ahead. finish your thought. >> i was saying, this is -- this is entering into kind of a new area of legal territory, although you're talking about a conflict that's existed for a century or so, state's rights versus the federal authority, federal leverage, the federal government leverage. it did appear that the justices, especially the conservative justices even suggested it in court that they said the burden of proof is on the obama a

i want to know if elena kagan or sonia sotomayor indicated anything of note?them were two of probably the more aggressive questioners on the bench today. the four liberal leaning justices were all very aggressive in their questioning on this jurisdictional issue, not specifically the key issue of the individual mandate, but they were very aggressive in their questioning today for both parties i'll say. they did not tip their hand. no one was really tipping their hand on where things are going, where their line of questioning is going to be tomorrow on the central issue. they did wade into it ever so slightly, which more indicated to us that were watching that they were ready to move on and get the arguments going on the major issue, but we really didn't get an indication of where they're going to be tomorrow and that's why we're going to show up bright and early tomorrow morning. >> reporter: that's why we'll be here tomorrow. >> well, far be it from me to interrupt all your pun. kate bolduan and jeffrey toobin, thanks so much. i want to scoot away from you an

tomas brought up stories that came out about elena kagan and the role she takes when debating health care -- whether justice kagan should reaccuse herself from the argument. permission was asked of the court to -- both kagan and clarence tomas have faced calls for reaccusal. one says kagan should not be on the case, because she was involved in that. caller: i think that it would be interesting to see it live. but so much of what the government does is private. or behind doors. i don't really think that it will make that much of a difference one way or the other. host: because? caller: because a lot of decisions are made privately. so if it's seen on tv or discussed in private and we just get bits and piecings of what's discussed, whatever will be determined will come out eventually, and then we'll poe -- host: do you plan to listen to a version of it audio-only? caller: i'll listen to bits and pieces but not all of it. just to get a feel of what's going on. host: one of our callers said it may draw people to listen to larger portions. caller: yes, i think that's very possible because

host: paul comment taking questions from elena kagan. -- paul clement. a lot of questions on our facebook page -- henry on the phone in houston, texas, democrat line joining in on this conversation on this thursday. good morning. caller: good morning. the whole thing is nothing but a sham. you have five republican judges and four democrats. from the start this whole thing is a sham. 26 republican governors rammed down our throats like our governor, rick perry, and without representation from the people that really need these benefits. it is a sham. host: let me go to the question this morning, which is the larger issue of the constitution and what the founding fathers had in mind. do you think the debate this week will be seen as part of their intent? caller: no, it is just a bit about how they don't want to give benefits to the poor people. that is the bottom line. you have five republicans. this court is an arm of the republican party. host: thank you. cameras are not allowed, so the sketch artists have been busy all week focusing on what happens. just

elena kagan should be taking a vacation. in the yvette the court loses its mind on this one, let's look at things from a different angle. who here believe this administration when they said it was going to cost $900 million a year? who here was surprised when we learned it was up to $12.70 trillion a year? who here believed this administration when nancy pelosi, when harry reid, when barack obama, when everyone of these liberals look at the american people and pledged that we were going to save $2,500 a year? who believed that? is anyone surprised it has gone up $2,200 per person? is the thing called democracy. think about this. they threw everything and the kitchen sink. it passed in a bipartisan fashion from their standpoint. bipartisan means they got everything, we got nothing. the day after it passed, what did the president do? he went on the road to sell it. wait a minute. if you had the support, why are you selling it after you won? the american people are not buying it. i have to wrap up some more of this. -- rip up s

if you want to let more women serve on the supreme court like elena kagan and sonia sotomayor, then were on the same team. if you want to see more women like hillary clinton as the secretary of state, then we are >> on the same team. >> if we want to say more racial mad as ra --chel maddows on television than we are. if you want a fair packed in your lifetime we are -- >> on the same team. >> if you want to see the tea party disappear -- >> we are on the same to. >> if you want to rate the 51% you heard about this morning in the united states congress, then we are -- >> on the same team. >> if we want a congress that is responsive to our needs, then we are rigid >> on the same team. >> if you want to keep title 9, then we are -- >> are on the same team of them are on the same team. if you want equal rights amendment ever to happen, we are -- >> on the same to. >> if you want to put down divisiveness and sexism and put down homophobia and put down racism and you want to put down taking action against people and not giving them their opportunities who have physical or mental disabilities

elena caigen. he won't say what arguments he'll use, kagan, meanwhile, won't recuse herself from the case, and chiefmisjohn roberts won't ask her to do so. she is presumably a yes vote, but ironically, it may be -- according to legal experts -- it's the conservatives on the high court who'll provide the votes that save the health care law because of past rulings in which they've endorsed a fairly broad interpretation of congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. >> the constitution says that congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, and there's just no question that a law which regulates one-sixth of the national economy is commercial. >> reporter: now, on the other hand, if mandate is struck down, it's hard to see the rest of the law surviving since insurance pools will be filled with the old and the sick and many healthy young people will opt out, costs as a consequence will soar. what's interesting is that right now the president has no plans to celebrate the two-year anniversary of the law, and that may reflect polls that indicate most people feel it should be c