there are a lot of decisions and they were fairley easy to report. there was not a lot of complexity. there was not a lot of divided votes. it's very nice because in this era, adam and bob and i talk about it all the time. we have to file stories within a few minutes, particularly with the health care, gay marriage. i've done it long enough that i can remember the time when i can read the whole opinion listen to justices read the dissent and now you have to move very quickly. fortunately, the outcomes were clear, the holdings were very similar. there are not a lot of complications. we were all writing within ten minutes so we're grateful to the court. >> another thing that i thought i noticed about it this year that seemed somewhat different is how much the decisions were spread out over the month of june was, for the most part, sort of one leading decision per decision day. jet stream passport june 1e8 was the license plates, june 22nd was the california raisins and then baek and same-sex marriage and death penalty each on a separate day. sometimes

but i think she's privileging her own case and the ability of jurors to look at her fairley and objectivelyd not only that, i just object to the undermining of the pro process cue toral role, judge alex. >> i agree with you on that. she behaved inappropriately. i hear calls for her dismissal because of her husband on the council. >> that doesn't do it. >> the justice system is incestuous. >> i agree with you. there's not an agree there. >> it's her rush to go out there and detail the charges against the cops and did in a lengthy presser. this is our moment thing, that was long and she went on with the charges and then, andell, and then when the defense wanted to have its lawyers speak up, she said to the judge, shut them up. i don't want -- gag order. i don't want to hear from them. >> i can't imagine any lawyer that doesn't want their side put forth in the public and not the other side. that's the nature of the process. you have somebody on one side and somebody on the other side and both want their way. >> the other problem with this is remember the initial charges rejected by the grand j

would this virus be available fairley soon or what's the timetable? >> well, you know i would hope it would be but i don't want to speak for the company in terms of how quickly they can turn it around. but, you know i'm pretty impressed with the fact that in a relatively short period of time we've come a long way. the previous fires was 60% effective, which means if you treated 100 birds 60 wook okay, but 40 wouldn't. that's not enough. you have to get it to 100% or close to it for it to be effective. >> i'm about out of time, so i won't get to can this question but i still am hearing a real problem as far as legal services and suing our eventual ability growers and costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars on frivolous lawsuits. so, you know that needs to be addressed. and we need to come up with a solution and i yooet yield back the remainder of my time. thank you. >> the chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. >> mr. secretary earlier when you were answering the questions about the cios, you indicated that there were stove pipe cios and

you know, newspaper work is, in a way, fairley narrow craft. >> wouldn't you be concerned, though if we differed on the outcome of who won and who lost? >> the thing is, they're both wrong. because what you really found from that is that there are seven justices who didn't question the constitutionality of the death penalty and that what i thought was starring in this was that it was a narrow, but i thought -- i think the end of my lead was unequivocal directive that states could experiment with ways to execute people and the court wasn't going to get in the way -- wasn't going to get in the way of that. you know i do think that two of them dissented. i thought waits interesting that the other two liberals didn't. rifs especially interesting and i don't have -- for justice sotomayor who is most questioning of the death penalty, maybe it means it's going to mean more later. if she does that maybe that would show some sort of momentum rather than it's just a minority of the justices who feel that way. but i thought that was an interesting part of it, too. >> i hear your reasoning soone