supreme court justice john paul stevens overcame early challenges to become the third longest-serving justice in the history of the supreme court. john paul stevens did not allow hardship to slow him down. instead, he excelled in studies at the university of chicago high school. shortly after earning a ba in english at the university of chicago, justice stevens, enlisted as code break, after work at north western law school and graduated magna cum laud. after completing clerkship with supreme court justice, justice stevens returned to chicago and joined a prominent law enforcement where he specialized on antitrust law. he gained a reputation as antitrust lawyer and left the firm to start his own practice. he was invite today teach at the law schools of north western university and the university of chicago and he also held several important positions as special counsel to the house of representatives and the u.s. attorney's office. in 1970 president nixon appointed stevens for the seventh circuit, as an appellate judge he continued to establish himself as an expert legal thinker. fife

supreme court justice john paul stevens overcame early challenges to become the third longest-serving justice in the history of the supreme court. john paul stevens did not allow hardship to slow him down. instead, he excelled in the studies at the university of chicago. shortly after earning a b. a. in english at the university of chicago, justice stevens enlisted in the navy and served as a code breaker during world war ii for which he was awarded a bronze star. after the work, he attended northwestern law school with grants from the g.i. bill and graduated with the highest gpa in the law school's history. after completing clerkship supreme court justice rutledge, justice stevens return to chicago and joined a prominent law firm where he specialized in antitrust law. he gained the reputation as a talented antitrust lawyer and sue left the firm to start his own practice. he was invited to teach at the law schools of northwestern university and university chicago, he also helped several important positions, special counsel to his house of representatives and his attorney general's off

supreme court justice john paul stevens overcame early challenges to become the third longest-servingustice in the history of the supreme court. john paul stevens did not allow hardship to slow him down. instead, he excelled in his studies at the university of chicago preparatory high school. shortly after earning a b.a. in english at the university of chicago, justice stevens enlisted in the navy and served as a code breaker during world war ii for which he was awarded a bronze star. after the war he attended northwestern law school with funds from the g.i. bill and graduated magna cum laude with the highest gpa in the law school's history. after completing a clerkship with supreme court justice willie rodlich, justice stevens returned to chicago and joined a prominent law firm where especialized in antitrust law. he gained a reputation as a talented antitrust lawyer and soon left the firm to start his own practice. he was invited to teach at the law schools of northwestern university and the university of chicago. and he also held several positions as special counsel to the u.s. hou

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

>> you could have added john paul stevens to that list. >> true. >> look. names on the list were also on my list, which the heritage foundation published. the remaining six judges all are very qualified men and women have a proper view of the modest roles a judge plays and going to interpret the constitution based on the words and not using the empty vessels supporting their personal or political biases. these are qualified people. and just pointed out six are sitting circuit court judges. five of them are sitting state supreme court justices. one of the ones on the circuit court spent time on the wisconsin supreme court as well. these are men, women, very well qualified with a broad bredth of experience. >> do you see problems for any of the 11 going up against democrats? knowing they play politics, clarence thomas, comes owe find, with judicial picks? >> the fact of the matter is that look. i think you've got to keep control of the united states senate. that is going to be very important here. i think any one of these nominees you're seeing the left criti

the rockefeller republicans, lincoln chafee and jim jeffords and arlen specter your -- even john paul stevens, these northern liberal rockefeller republican types are getting pushed out of the party. the republican party is moving hard to the right and the democrat party is moving to the left. you now live in a world which is not 1960, which the most conservative democrat in congress is still to the left of the most liberal republican. there are not so many left anymore. that is this massive realignment in which we have ideological alignment. for a lot of the 20th century, we didn't have it. tell the story of primaries. >> are the returns in from wisconsin yet? let me say one word about what you just mentioned and then i will talk about medical primaries and how to understand our current moment in this election. the story we just told you about, the dynamics of the reorganization of the party and the catalyst of the voting rights act explains in my mind that the political polarization we have is not a passing moment, not a product of particular individual political personalities. it's a refle

has a professor at georgetown law school known for his conservative points of view along with john paul stevensber of the supreme court, and also now ex-solicitors general of the united states. those are the lawyers who represent the united states when we go before the supreme court, and both democrats and republicans have lauded merrick garland. i don't think there's any question that he is eminently qualified. the issue was never garland. it was always about the president who nominated him. in this instance, president obama is being villified for having put forth a candidate who was open fully embraced by members of the senate republican majority. senator hatch, for example, talked about merrick garland before he was nominated as someone he'd like to see on the court. so the issue was never about garland, it was always about president obama. garland's views on race, as i think kristen has pointed out, are pretty well established and he is clearly within the mainstream of solid majority support on most issues involving the advancement of equality in american life. so that wasn't the issue. i t

>> let me begin by offering our thanks to our two justices said the former justice john paul stevens and justice kagan would each generously given their time to be with us this evening and i am very much looking forward to this conversation. thanks to both of you. [applause] and justice stevens let me start with you, going to the supreme court december december 19, 1975. the world stage quite a bit over the 35 years. is the supreme court also achieved in the nature of the cases and went about their daily work. >> it is a constant. >>. >> d.c. how much control i have. [laughter] but it's your president every time the justice gets on it is a different court city looked at those changes and that is the most important change with the appointment of the new justice. now there will be another new justice sunday. and i am very happy to say that that says it almost never disagree with her. [laughter] >> in the case they decided this morning this struggle to keep the case alive. >> the court has changed over the period of which you have been involved. >> the major change is to manage the dock

justice john paul stevens writing for a unanimous supreme court in the 1999 decision quote it includes a variety of exemption some with a secured congressional purpose and quote. similarly the department just as race number concerns about the letter to senator joe biden. the paradoxical nature of the grandfathering scheme has serious applications for regulation of daily fantasy sports as well as additional sports gambling. over the course of nearly five years of litigation three federal lawsuits against two different sitting state governors and three court of appeals decisions with a poor decision and that here's what we know about pasca. first for grandfather states such as nevada delaware montana oregon and perhaps a few others pasca freezes in time circa 1992 those states abilities to enact sports gaming related regulations. second, for non-grandfathered state pasca provides states the option of retaining their sports gambling prohibitions as his are repealing their prohibitions entirely. to do otherwise would apparently render pasca unconstitutional under the 10th amendment. whethe

justice john paul stevens writing in the 1995 decision obscuredat "pafta have congressional purposes." similarly the didn't of justice raised demrned a letter to then senator joe bind. it was a grapped fathering scheme has serious implications for consumer protection regulation of daily fantasy sports as well as traditional sports gambling. over the course of nearly five years of litigation, three federal lawsuits against two different sitting state governors and three courta of appeals. here's what we know about pafta. first, her grandfather state. monday, oregon and perhaps a few others. so can 192. those state's abilities to enact sports gaming regulations. second, for the nongrandfather's states have two options to repeal their prohibitions. to do otherwise would render past the individual. whether any middle ground remains the subject is still ongoing litigation filed by the mlb. nba, nhl, nfl, and provides anguage it daily conversation. no federal court case decide whether it constitute illegal gambling. there's considerable debate we found in our research over whether or not fa