my condolences to justice ginsburg and her family. and i wish to congratulate miss kagan on her nomination. it is an honor to introduce her today. i had the pleasure of meeting her last month and found her to be an impressive and pleasant individual. %%indicated then and i look forward tore attending this committee's hearings to learn more about her record, her philosophy, and her qualifications. as an attorney myself, i recognize an impressive legal resume when i see one, and there's no doubt that miss kagan has gone far since graduating from harvard law school magna cum laude in 1986 and following her law school days in cambridge, she clerked for appellate court judge and u.s. supreme court justice thurgood marshall and entered the private legal practice at the prestigious washington, d.c. law firm. before joining the faculty of the university chicago school where sheer anded tenure in 1995. from '95 to '99, she served with the clinton administration first as an associate white house counsel and then in positions with the domestic p

i think it's because justice ginsburg's husband died yesterday. she was actually on the bench. she wrote the majority opinion in the church state case that was announced today. she read a summary of it from the bench. i think it was also subdued because i'm sure the justices are saddened by justice john paul stevens' retirement. chief justice roberts read a letter that the justices had sent to him, expressing that sadness, and justice stevens read from the bench the letter he had sent to his colleagues about how much he enjoyed the friendships they had with him. i should also note that chief justice roberts didn't note the passing of justice ginsburg's husband and read about his long and highly favorable career in the law. >> brown: marcia coyle, thanks for this. we'll talk to you later in the program. >> thank you, jeff. >> ifill: as marcia noted today's gun ruling is likely to have far ranging impact on both sides of the debate. here to explain why are paul helmke president of the brady campaign to prevent gun violence and wayne lapierre executive vice president of the nation

>> absolutely, chief justice ginsburg. but me just say, i feel my time has expired, i ask the court to get rid of this frivolous planted to if -- frivolous plaintiff-driven, no-client lawsuit and speedily the firm the rolling below. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you have the last word. >> thank you very much, madam chief justice. my colleague faults us for not siding balls of war as they existed at the time of the middle ages, he said it ordered the sparing of those who surrendered. moreover, he same set of justice who yelled themselves and unconditionally to the victor. my colleague it rightly sites victoria for the proposition that in war, they're not be at the time in the middle ages, there may not beat quarter given. our argument is quite different. once given, quarter cannot be withdrawn without just cause, and innocent nonbelligerents cannot be murdered what annette captivity -- while in captivity. it is as simple as that. unless the grant of quarter gives reason for fearing a

it was certainly after justice ginsburg's opinion in the bmi case. let me say a ccuple of other things about the archbishop. his name has been unfairly maligned tonight. it is important to remember that the archbishop really was the foremost legal and spiritual counselor of the kingdom. he was a combination of ted olson and oprah winfrey. [laughter] indeed, much like chief justice ginsburg, he was a leading member of the bar before he assumed his current position. unlike the chief justice, he was nominated not by president clinton, but by god himself. >> is that in the record? >> i would have to look. i'm not sure. one could take judicial notice that the archbishop of canterbury was selected by god. >> does not violate the doctrine? >> that doctrine was applied somewhat more loosely, as was the separation of power in the 15th century. it was reasonable for his majesty to rely on the archbishop's opinion, given his preeminent status in the legal community. as was poiited out earlier in the colloquy with mr. garre, henry was not someone educated in law

the ginsburgs have been a model of dignity and grace and justice ginsburg and her children will be in my prayers. i want to welcome you back to the judiciary committee, general kagan. something tells me this is likely to be your last confirmation hearing. as america's founders designed it, the senate's role of advice and consent is a check. fulfilling that role requires us to evaluate a nominee for which he's been nominated. include both legal experience and judicial philosophy. while legal experience summarizes the past, judicial philosophy describes how a nominee will approach judging in the future. my primary goal in this confirmation process is to get the best picture i can of general kagan's judicial philosophy, primarily from her record, but also from this hearing, as well. i have to make my decision whether to support or not support hernomination on evidence not on blind faith. i've never considered the lack of judicial experience to be an automatic disqualifier for a judicial nominee. many have had no previous judicial experience. what they did have, however, an average of mor

they were married in 1953, i believe, just as ginsberg and martin ginsburg. he joked because -- saying that he had to move to washington because his wife got a good job with the government. . . >> i want independent law should be given respect and substance. this would open it up. in england they have courts and wonder if we're going to wind up with surreal courts here. the chief rabbi. american in north american alliance association has come out against her, said she's not kosher. so that's what the international law will wind up by england with that kind of law. guest: well there's no justice of the united states supreme court that believes foreign laws or international laws are binding on the united states. the issue is really, when courts look to various forms of reasoning, are they ad to look and see how other court systems have addressed some of the similar issues and there's a divide between those that say they should do that lir aoften and those that say they shouldn't do it much. there's a number of issues where the supreme could must in terms of of

justice ginsburg wrote the main opinion and it came in the skilling case and i think she gave perhaps the best way to explain honest services fraud. she read a summary from the bench and she said here's an example. a mayor takes a bribe in return for awarding a contract to a party. the bribe is from that party who wants the contract. the contract's terms are the same as if they had been negotiated at arm's length. the city and its citizens have not lost anything tangible in terms of property or money. the citizens have lost something intangible: the right to the honest services of the mayor. >> brown: but in the cases of these very high-profile corporate folks-- skilling and conrad black in particular-- prosecutors were using this... that law to get at them. right? >> exactly. mr. skilling brought a two-pronged challenge to the law. he said... or to his conviction, actually. he said first he did not get a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and community prejudice. but the core of the case here had to do with this law. he said it was unconstitutionally vague. it didn't define the

everyone who ever met marty ginsburg was enriched by his incredible warmth and humor and generosity,nd i'm deeply saddened by his passing. mr. chairman, in law school i had the good fortune to lead has a kind of motto spoken each year at graduation. we tell the new graduates that they are ready to enter a profession devoted to those wise restraints that make us free. that phrase has always captured for me he way law and the rule of law mattered. what the rule of law does is nothing less than to secure for each of us what our constitution calls the blessings of liberty, those rights and freedoms, that promise of equality that have defined this nation since its founding and what the supreme court does is to safeguard the rule of law through a commitment to even handedness, principle and restraint. my first real exposure to the court came almost a quarter century ago when i began my clerkip with justice thurgood marshall. justic marshall reveered the court and for a simple reason. in his life, in his great struggle for racial justice, the supreme crt stood as a part of government that w

they were married in 1953, i believe, just as ginsberg and martin ginsburg.he joked because -- saying that he had to move to washington because his wife got a good job with the government. . guest: irreverence enough to know it was not necessarily the most exciting period of study. host: l.j. go ahead from wisconsin. caller: ileana taken -- elkagan has expressed international law should be opened up. and the other thing is the chief rabbi in that the north american alliance has come out against her and said she is not kosher. we're going to wind up like england. host: go ahead. guest: there is no justice of the united states supreme court that believes any religious laws or international laws are binding on the united states. the issue is when courts look to of various forms of reasoning, are they allowed to look and see how other court systems have addressed some of the similar issues? there is a divide between those that say they should do that fairly often and those that says they should not do it that much. there are a number of issues in which the suprem

with bitter ginsburg herself said she hardly agrees with him on anything of substance, but they are pals. justice brennan and justice marshall cross is the logical lines to be friends with conservatives. i do think these nine, especially since they were all, for this group at least, lowered court judges, all were accustomed to enjoy each other's customer -- each other's company and not have rivalries' the former politicians might not necessarily have. >> if you have been around the court when people like black and frankfurt are serving together, you know they do not always get along. indeed, sometimes the relationships are seriously tested by concerns and try to get them worked out. when burger was the chief justice, it was a very unhappy court internally. warren burger was himself a rather small person, not one of the current giants in the court history. but he was not able to keep a court that was reasonably agreeable with each other. there was a lot of backbiting that was going on there. in fact, we felt it in the press room because he had a public information officer whom he assigned

everyone who ever met marty ginsburg was enriched by his incredible warmth and humor and generosity, and i'm deeply saddened by his passing. mr. chairman, in law school i had the good fortune to lead has a kind of motto spoken each year at graduation. we tell the new graduates that they are ready to enter a profession devoted to those wise restraints that make us free. that phrase has always captured for me the way law and the rule of law mattered. what the rule of law does is nothing less than to secure for each of us what our constitution calls the blessings of liberty, those rights and freedoms, that promise of equality that have defined this nation since its founding and what the supreme court does is to safeguard the rule of law through a commitment to even handedness, principle and restraint. my first real exposure to the court came almost a quarter century ago when i began my clerkship with justice thurgood marshall. justice marshall reveered the court and for a simple reason. in his life, in his great struggle for racial justice, the supreme court stood as a part of governmen

there was a very strong dissenting opinion by justice ginsburg. you point that the private sector could retire -- the employees pay was confidential. i worked for 40 years where nobody knew anybody else's salary and that is very common in the private sector. the majority seemed completely unaware. the reality of the workplace -- >> it is rather interesting that the present court, both the rehnquist court and the robert court, -- roberts court, seemed unaware of the concept of statutory construction, when you are interpreting remedial legislation, you did it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction -- give it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction, so that the objective of the legislation can be achieved. you see that in the 1960's and 1970's. now, you only see reference to that language in dissents. 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 decisio

kagan, whether you'd be more like john roberts and more like ruth bader ginsburg. so i think we need to know a little bit more what we can expect of you as a judge. >> reporter: rhode island democrat sheldon whitehouse tried to get at that point, asking about high-profile split decisions, driven by conservative justices. >> i want to ask you what you think about all these five to four decisions and what effort the court should make to return to a collegial environment that the court, where even these highly contentious decisions, like "brown versus board of education" and "roe versus wade" are driven either by unanimous or massive majorities of the court rather than the slenderest possible majority and to try to reach across the partisan divide on the court so it's not just republican appointees acting together. >> senator whitehouse, it's a hard question you pose, because on the... on the one hand, every judge, every justice has to do what he or she thinks is right on the law. you wouldn't want the judicial process to become in any way a bargaining process or a lo

in which souter, ginsburg, and breyer joined. kennedy filed an opinion concurring part in which souter, ginsburg, and breyer justices joined. scalia filed an opinion. there was a dissenting opinion in which sculley joined and alito joined as to all the parts 3b2. there was a consenting opinion. roberts, the chief justice, took no part of the case. i think the one thing you can be clear about is that roberts took no part in the decision of the case. if we are trying to say that the rule of law provides a set of boundaries in which people can make decisions with confidence and in the defense of the united states of america come we need for the objective branch to have a set of rules in which they cannot operate confidently. if we cannot operate constantly, what does it give to our enemy? it says that we are morally ambiguous and that we don't know how we're operating and what we can do. the defense of freedom requires the rule of law, and the rule of what is one of the greatest supporters of freedom. we move to the last case which

there was a very strong dissenting onion by justice ginsburg. you point that the private sector could retire -- the employees pay was confidential. i worked for 40 years where nobody knew anybody else's salary and that is very common in the private sector. the majority seemed completely unaware. the reality of the workplace -- >> it is rather interesting that the present court, both the rehnquist court and the robert court, -- roberts court, seemed unaware of the concept of statutory construction, when you are interpreting remedial legislation, you did it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction -- give it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction, so that the objective of the legislation can be achieved. you see that in the 1960's and 1970's. now, you only see reference to that language in dissents. 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 decisio

about how when she was a staffer -- a temporary staffer to senator biden's committee during the ginsburg hearings, she felt it was to stage and to much of a charade. she complained, not sitting where she is going to sit in a couple of weeks, that as an observer it did not yield much information to the public. >> the robert bork ones obviously yielded lots of information to the public, with a very unhappy ending for robert bork. since then, it has not been as confrontational at that level >> what about thomas? >> that was an unusual situation. if you look at what happened before the accusations from anita hill, that was very much of questions from senators, a response from the nominee, and not much follow-up from the senators. >> i hope i live long enough to see the day that a nominee to the supreme court says to the president "if you are going to nominate me, i am not going to appear before the senate judiciary committee. that is my condition. i will take the job otherwise." elena kagan was right. the process is vacuous. it is meaningless. it is insulting. it is degrading. it is beneath