azhar elena kagan, justice ginsburg. justice alito is not from that far away -- newark. i know it's on the other side of the bridge. a new york story we will be exploring together this evening. i want to begin with the relationship between presidents and justices and offer you an of the structure of that relationship and in particular, there are two big points. pattern to thee dalrican presidency -- ti pattern to the american presidency. pattern creates face-offs at moments in american history between presidents and justices. structure, the situation of the constitution. our justices are chosen politically. justices do not pick their successors quite. it's not a self-perpetuating meritocracy the way that yale law school will pick it successors. the way the cardinals pick the pope and the pope names cardinals and the cardinals pick the pope and this self-perpetuating way -- no, our constitution provides for political choice to be made whenever there is to be a replenishment of the judiciary. both supreme court and the lower federal court. so, the process of selection is b

justice elena kagan said the prosecutor's cut was as clear a violation as the court is ever going to see thanks to the discovery of the prosecutor's notes. the names of the potential african american jurors were highlighted in green and in this list of possible jurors titled "definite no," the top five people are black. georgia argued that prosecutors had flagged the black perspective jurors to make sure they were following new supreme court guidelines handed down in a landmark 1986 case to prevent racial discrimination in jury selection. now, some anti-death penalty groups say that race discrimination in jury selection may be less obvious today, but it still persist, but norah, this case focused solely on foster's trial 30 years ago. it did not address those bigger concerns. >> o'donnell: jan crawford outside the supreme court. january, thank you. in the presidential race, democrat hillary clinton opened fire today on republican donald trump, addressing a labor convention in detroit, clinton said trump would bankrupt america and asked how can anybody lose money running a casino. ber

elena kagan: believe me, i know that, when i clerked on the court. and now there are about 80. i always tell my clerks. oh, when i was young, we walked 25 miles to the school bare foot, you know, so i always feel like that. gosh, i know what it was to work and you guys don't. justice stevens: that's true. you were a little earlier, when heavier.en host: we just had to do it for a year. year ally did it year in, out. justice kagan: it was probably justice than a clerk. justice stevens: it's a serious term.em during the one of the questions that sometimes comes up, well, now arguments, hearing so you apparently have nothing to do, but the truth of the time of , the busiest he year is the time after you finished hearing argument. and sometimes you produce opinions like the one that came this morning, that are totally unintelligible. [laughter] justice kagan: i'm glad i didn't write that one. [laughter] justice stevens: normally writes very longitudinal. and it's not just the opinion. it's the whole case. there are cases in which i thought the perfect solution on this case would ha

john paul stevens and our current circuit justice elena kagan. generouslym has a given their time to be with us this evening, and i'm very much looking forward to this conversation. thank you to both of you. [applause] >> justice stevens, let me start with you. you joined the supreme court on beinger 19, 1975, after confirmed unanimously by the senate. he left on june 29, 2010. the world changed quite a bit over those 35 years. do you think the supreme court also changed, either in the nature of the cases or in the way the justices went about daily work, or in any other way you might identify? or do you think the court is a constant? briefing first say one -- briefin thing. i want you to know that he also was a very good caddy. [laughter] caddied for me more than once. to answer your question, i'm reminded of barren white, he said that every time there is a new justice on the court, it is a different court. you cannot summarize the changes in terms of time that goes by, but each member of the court changes it and it is a different institution. th

indeed, justice elena kagan remarked the yesterday will go down in history as one of the most transformationalupreme court justices of our nation. his views on interpreting text have changed the way all of us talk and think about the law. the justices contribution in all its interpretation, and its subspecies, originalism and constitutional construction, his principled and courageous opinions dissents in area after area of american law and his personal decency provide a paradigm to which all jurists may desire. we truly are blessed to be serving on the court with such valor and distinction. i had the great good fortune of meeting the justice when he came to the oxford union. we were all of 22 years of age, but even then, we appreciated the mind, the soul, and the heart we had amidst us. the justice often acknowledged that he wrote his opinions, particularly his dissent, for contemporary law students and young lawyers. he has inspired several generations to think and reason critically and to maintain civility and generosity of spirit. our four distinguished jurists with us today, practitioners,

>> i think you have to think about it the implications of two more sonia sotomayor or two more elena kagan'sst issue, not the economy or national security -- >> the next president will nominate that. we'll ask one of the most influential republicans in the country, mitch mcconnell. he has a new book. >>> we'll go over this right now. this is something that happened over the weekend. if you blinked you missed it. the huffington post had a writer yes this story. it was jarring. it was very jarring. it talks about hillary clinton's e-mails, recovered the deleted e-mails and put it together to see a direct linkage between 20 different countries that she cut arms deals with and only 10% of the clinton foundation -- the money has gone to charitable causes. almost as if these are racketeering charges that are going to indict her according to this columnist under the rico -- the same way we took down the mobster. >> when this was posted it, it was an accident and the writer said that's not true. he's asking huffington post why did you take down my article? because this is factually correct. >> think

elena. >> so what about, we had a program this afternoon about something which has been, let's say, a topic of active discussion in our circuit. justice kagan just mentioned facts in the amicus briefs that may not have been brought out by the parties. do you think the supreme court -- or any court, for that matter -- should be looking at facts that the parties didn't somehow put into the record, or is that out of line? >> well, it's a little bit like looking at the internet. you do find things you don't necessarily look for, you learn a little bit about the case from outside sources, but it's not part of your planned preparation for decision. but i don't really recall learning any factual matter in amicus briefs that i didn't have other access to. >> what do you think about looking at the internet, justice kagan? [laughter] >> you know, i think maybe this is the wrong room to talk about this. [laughter] no, i think you have to be careful. but i also think that we do nothing in a way that's hermetically sealed from life. we bring our own experiences to the table, we wring our own knowledge base to the -- we bring our own knowledge base to th