general moore where justice scalia decided the case 9-0. so if this legislative body, if the united states senate votes 98-0 in favor of renewing the voting rights act, relying upon the extensive record which i have cited, that's not a sign of weakness. that's not a sign that the senate doesn't know what it's doing with a 98-0 vote. so the questions which i have posed for judge sotomayor are these: would you apply the justice harlan rational base standard or the congruent and proportionality standard? what are your views on justice scalia's skarbgtization that the -- quote -- "congruence and proportionality standard is a flabby test and an invitation to judicial arrest by trarryness and policy -- arbitrariness and policy-driven decision making where justice scalia says that is a standard which is so vague? third, do you agree with chief justice rehnquist's conclusion that the violence against women legislation was unconstitutional because of congress's method of reasoning? fourth, do you agree with the division of constitutional authority b

justice scalia wrote a 5-4 decision saying there is no standing in this case. john roberts wrote a law review article about standing. he joined the justice department in 1981 when rex lee -- the beginning of the reagan administration. then john roberts, now chief justice roberts was a special assistant to the attorney general. one of the things going on in the justice department then is judicial restraint. what kind of arguments can we make to the supreme court to advance our goals of encouraging more judicial restraint? and standing was a big thing with rex lee and the justice department, and there was john roberts as a part of that. then when he did become chief justice, one of the very first opinions he wrote on stepsively -- on extensively involved -- involved several things. as chief justice, he wrote a very powerful standing decision going down different bases for do all of them. i know we are short of time. one case was wales versus submarines. the ninth circuit issued a decision restricting the use of sonar by submarines because of damage to the whales.

justice scalia said there's no stand anything this case. john roberts wrote a law review argue about standing. he joined the justice department in 1981 when rex lee, chief then john roberts, now chief justice roberts was a special tant to the attorney general. one of the things going on is judicial restraint, what can we do? what kind of arse -- arguments can we make, and standing was a big thing with rex lee, and there was john roberts as a part of that. and when he did become chief justice, one of the first opinions he wrote was a case against daimlerchrysler, and that ostensibly involved tax breaks, but it went off all about standing. and a very, very -- i think it was his first opinion or main his second opinion as chief justice. he wrote a very, very powerful standing decision going down various different bases for rejecting all of them. the other cases in the environmental area, and i'll do this brief because i know we're short of time. one way -- case was whales vs. sonar because of the damage the submarines might do to the whales. th

justice scalia had 85%. if you really want to know where the supreme court is that in any case, it is justice kennedy that can be your marker. in terms of what just as you might regard as the most interesting, it is justice scalia and justice thomas, who remain the most fascinating and principal. i happen to disagree with the principles of lott, but would you can see is that when they do believe in a principle, they go where it takes them, whether it is favored criminal defendants, something that might help a plaintiff. they stick to their principles, so they are much more likely this term to vote with the four members on the left to form a majority of five, whereas no one on love left ever joined any of the more conservative members of the reason no one in the left ever joined any of the more conservative members to reach a majority. justice thomas's most likely to be independent, to take a president and throw it overboard and introduce a lot of new ideas, and we will say. maybe he will have a tremendous inf

both justice scalia and justice thomas have written extensively criticizing the use of foreign and international law in supreme court decisions." so she criticized justice scalia and thomas, who have expressed opposition to this. let me be blunt. i believe it's judge sotomayor, not the justices scalia and thomas, who are wrong. under her approach, a yuj is free -- has free rein to survey the world to find what they might consider to be good ideas, and then impose these views on the american people calling it "law." however, this is not the american system. our system requires judges to adhere to this constitution. to the statutes and to the legal precedent, to the end that justices follow the will of the people of our country, as expressed in our law. the constitution says we do ordain and establish this constitution of the united states, not some other. judges aren't free to amend it by citing some other foreign constitution. i think this is a big deal. so they're not -- judges aren't free to indulge their own personal opinions about what good policy is. judges don't set policy. and to search f

and the supreme court in its decision by justice scalia said yes they are testimonyial evidence, and analysts can be witnesses. i am not sure that the voting rights decision didn't sound like john roberts, but there was a remarkable accident by justice kennedy that did not sound like justice kennedy to me. it was basically representative, but he basically said the court is sweeping away 90 years of established rules, vast potential to disrupt criminal pronings proceedings. a sharp accident from him. this case is quite significant, and it will take some time to shake out. i wanted to make a point in looking at the court, how we look at the justices. obviously an interesting lineup. kennedy writes the accident, and briar joining roberts and alito in the accident. talking about how new justices can change the court, obviously we will see society mayor have her own impact on the court. >> if you look back to his first term on the supreme court, there was a case called white versus illinois. a man was convicted in a sex abuse case and he was trying to argue that the girl who accused him sh

again justice scalia called their bluff attacking justice alito's opinion. of course in both cases justice scalia wanted to overrule the cases in question expressly but at least he was honest about his intentions. there's parents involved in community schools vs. seattle school district 1. in thahat case the court rejectd local school authority in the area of voluntary integration of public schools. area of voluntary integration of public schools. the chief yeah, it works for us. yeah. hey, if they ranked "sportscenter" anchors, where do you think i'd be ranked? - i don't know. - come on. i'd rather not get into it. come on, pick a number between one and 10. well... i'm not sure you'll be in the top 10. i'm in the top 10, roger. ♪ >> you get the name on that thing. it's the greatest summer of your life. >> ludwig scores. >> it's anyone's game. >> [crowd noise]. >> scores! >> [cheers and applause]. >> scores. >> game 7 is a 1 game, winner takes the trophy home. >> i will meet you in the school yard, baby for all of the marbles on friday night in detroit. >> w

justice stevens wrote the opinion, and he was joined by justice scalia, sutor, thomas and me. careful listeners would have noticed that i emerged in these cases as the swing justice. [laughter] >> the only member of the court in the majority in all three of those 5-4 decisions. among most-watched case that is did not come to us from the second circuit, i picked three, wyatt v. lavigne, caperton v.a.c. massy coal company, and northwest austin municipal utility district v. holder. wyatt had a predecessor the year before in rigov. med tronnic. the court held 8-1 that f.d.a.'s regime for medical divines pre-empted all state law -- devices pre-empted all state law taught suits -- the f.d.a. allowed to be marketed caused physical injuries. i was the lone dissenter in that case. wyeth v. lavigne involved drugs rather than devices, and the absence of a preemings clause in that statute -- pre-emption clause in that statute proved as positive. tort laws and the state law could be maintained the court held 6-3, claims for inadequate warnings on drug labels. caperton v.a.t. massy coal comp

justice seevens wrote the opinion, joined by justices scalia, souter, thomas, and me. careful listeners would have noticed that i emerged in these cases as the swing justice. the only member of the court in the majority in all three of those 5-4 decisions. among most-watched cases that did not come to us from the second circuit, i picked three, wythe v. levine, and northwest austin municipal utility district v. holder. wythe had a predecessor the year before in regal v. medtmbing ronic. the court held 8-1 that the f.d.a.'s regime for medical devices preempted all state law, charging the device the f.d.a. allowed to be marketed caused physical injuries. i was the lone dissenter in that case. wythe v. levine involved drugs rather than devices and the absence of a preemption clause in that statute. tort suits under state law could be maintained, the court held 6-3, claims for inadequate warnings on drug labels. caperton v. a.t. mass see cole company came with a record resembling john grisham's novel "the appeal." there was a jury verdict in favor of caperton who charged th

justices in this case. three liberals joining scalia, kennedy writing the dissent, bryant joining alito. when we looked at the role of the justices and how they change the courts, we will see sonia sotomayor having her own impact. the confrontation close -- plus has had a lot of influence. if you look back to the first term of the supreme court, there is a case called white versus illinois. it is about a man who was convicted in a sex abuse case. the girl accused -- who accused them should have to go in and testify against them or so he was arguing. they analyze that in the way the evidence was reliable and here's a. thomas wrote a concurrence. he urged the court to rethink the way we look at this entire issue. he looked at it historically. he talked about the trial of sir walter raleigh for treason. they did not want to have trials by affidavit. justice scalia " at some length from that -- quotes at some length from that. i only bring a sub because when we think about the courts, this goes back to something we were talking about at the beginning in transparency in. you do not know what i

o'connor and the three much more conservative members of the court, chief justice rehnquist, justice scalia and justice thomas issuing the procurer am that was an on signed for the court the authorship later became evident was kennedy's and was only because kennedy and o'connor were comfortable with the equal protection aspect that is is every boat being counted like every other vote which clearly was not the case that they were able to muster the five votes even though there is one place in the opinion that says seven of asa agreed and those of less that scrambled out in front of the court afterwards found out and said perhaps momentarily it is seven to two vote let me look, there are one, two, three, four dissenters in trying to parse out with this opinion was that it did come down to a question eventually and ultimately on how the ballots were being counted and there is a very short exchange between ted olson representing mr. bush and justice souter. >> [inaudible] what they have done is provide a process virtually impossible to have these issues resolved and the constitution controversy

the supreme court said that there was an insufficient record, justice scalia said the test of proportionality, flabby. he says this was an invitation to arbitrariness. when you look to the standard of congruence and proportionality, this is very vague. a divergence from the standard that was articulated in 1968, whether there was a rational basis for the decision, and as the justice noted, the standard of congressional proportionality is flat, he went on to say, this casts the court in the role of the taskmaster, we must regularly check their homework to make certain that this is identifying the violations to make their remedy constitutional and proportional. in the confirmation hearings -- confirmation hearings of cheese just as -- chief justice roberts, he was very supportive of the role of congress, where the court should be differential to the congress. in response to a question, he said the supreme court should defer to the congressional findings. in response to my question, he said, and i appreciate the difference between institutional competence when it comes to basic questions of deve

justice scalia, very conservative. 98-0. what happened to those days? that is not the senate i have been part of. i would like to go back to that. but i've lived in a world where it may be very difficult to do that. and if i use the ginsberg-scalia standard, she has a chance of getting my vote. if i use the senator obama's standard, there is no way she will get my vote. the hurdle she would have to overcome if i used the scalia standard is this temperament problem, overstated, overblown, or is it fundamental? and if she more than just a liberal judge, an activist advocate wearing a robe using the bench as a way to abdicate her causes? she said all the things that i would like to hear. she said the things that a lito and roberts said. but i am bound by law. i will see if she can stand scrutiny. at the end of the day, the program has chosen someone who has accomplished a lot, is very educated, and has informed judicial record. at the end of the day, he is asking me to do something he could not do himself. and that is to look at a complete person and under

>> this was along the ideological lines we've seen, justice kennedy wrote the opinion, ginned by scalia, thomas, alito and chief justice roberts, what we think of the as the more liberal ring. justices stephens, breyer, ginsburg an souter were in the dissent. >> what did the dissent say? >> justties ginsburg said the city had adequate basis to fear it would have been pseudoby the black firefighters. she had a somewhat different standard for an employer to meet. she said that the -- that the majority's strong basis in evidence test she said went too far. the city, she said, had a. evidence that -- had ample evidence that its test might p flewed. her reasoning was a little bit different from that of jouge sotomayor and the lower courts. e

two pairs of justices, scalia and thomas, roberts and alito, are they fair conspiracies -- comparisons? are there in jurisprudential difference is? justice o'connor used to be in so many cases a critical vote. justice kennedy often plays that role now. why should we say about the place of justice kennedy in the court? fifthly, is the court today more receptive, or i should say less receptive to nontraditional legal sources? the warren court was famous, like in brown versus board of education, for having social science data in its footnotes. is the present court less receptive to data in this respect? one might think of the argument over the use of comparative or international law data, which has been somewhat controversial. sixth, what are the methodological debates? justices into debates about textualism, regionalism, and questions of that kind. seventh, " trend, if any, would you care to remark on from the beginning to the present time of the roberts court? are we able to paint any kind of picture of this particular court? i mentioned to the declining dockets. he was not here to spec

o'connor and then the three much more conservative members of the court, chief justice rehnquist, justice scalia and justice thomas issuing a procurium, it was an unsigned opinion for the court. the authorship later became evident, was kennedy's and it was only because kennedy and o'connor were comfortable with the equal protection aspect. that is is every vote being counted like every other vote, which clearly was not the case. that they were able to muster the five votes even though there's one place in the opinion that says seven of us agree and those of us who scrambled out for court afterwards found that one and said perhaps momentarily, a-ha it's a 7-2 vote. let me look, no there are 1, 2, 3, 4 dissents to parse out what was going on. it came down eventually how the ballots were being counted. >> can we submit that we incorrectly interpreted the line in doing that because what they have done is provided a process whereby it is virtually impossible and not completely possible to have these issues resolved and the constitution constantly controversy resolved in time for that federal statutor

thirdly, one here is sort of popular press commentary distinguishing two justices on the court, justice scalia and thomas, on the one hand, and roberts and justice alito on the other. are those parings and, as fair comparisons? is there and grab some jurisprudential difference in the way each of those pairs of justice is operates? fourthly, what about justice kennedy? justice o'connor used to be in some encases the with our critical loads, justice kennedy is not implying that rollout. what should we say about place of justice kennedy on the court? fifthly, is the accord today more receptive or shouldn't say less receptive to non-traditional legal sources. in the warren court was a famous line in brown vs. board of education for having a social science data in its with nouns. is the present court less receptive to data have that kind and in this respect one might think of the arguments over the use of comparative or international law did it which as you know has been somewhat controversial and what about methodological the beit? to the justices enter into debates over things like textualism, re

. >> and he was directing to justice scalia i shouldn't buy green plums for my wife? i've never seen a green plum. and that's -- you know, he wasn't trying humor but it came across as just terrible humor and it just completely fell flat. in the end, maybe that's the bell for me to stop. but in the end, he lost the case 5-4 and a lot of people think that if true first amendment lawyer had argument the case it might have been 5-4 the other way. one quick postscript. the faction of fruit growers who objected to thomas campaign arguing the case were so upset that they filed a malpractice suit against him. and one of their counts was that it was malpractice for him to fail to refer the case to a supreme court specialist and i thought in a symbolic way that really symbolized the supreme court speciality bar had arrived. it was deemed so objectively better than the run-of-the-mill lawyer that it even became the basis of a malpractice suit. the suit didn't succeed. there was a settlement. but it seemed to symbolize that sometimes it does really matter to have a good supreme c

and justice scalia and justice breyer appeared in an interview on the web.re is no doubt that there is enormous public interest in what the supreme court does when the case -- in the case deciding the supreme court -- the box around the supreme court was loaded with trucks. although the cameras could not get inside, there was a tremendous public concern. and the decisions of the court on all of the cutting edge issues of the day. the court decides executive power, congressional power, defendants' rights, habeas corpus, guantanamo, civil- rights, voting rights, affirmative action, abortion, and the list could go on and on. in both the 109th and 110th congress, i have introduced legislation calling for the court to be televised. twice it was reported favorably out of committee, but neither time reached the floor of the united states senate. united states senate. xu1Ñno carrierringno carrierrin0 whether she agrees with justice souter, justice stevens. whether she agrees with justice breyerç the televising judicial proceedings are a valuable teaching device, wh

justices scalia, kennedy, souter and thomas joined me in holding that the issue had to stay on the state court track and their petition for arbitration would not be in federal court. the fourth circuit, whose decision we reviewed was on a different ground of the fourth circuit. third and by far the most prominent of this, the court revisited a case and substantially cut back on the scope of automobile searches. once the scene has been secured, police may search the interior of the car if and only if they reasonably believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the defendant was arrested in other words, no search for drugs when the arrest is for speeding. careful listeners would have noticed that i emerged in these cases has the swing justice. the only member of the court in the majority in all three of those five if-4 decisions -- by- 4 decisions. [unintelligible] there was a predecessor the year before the court held eight-one that the fda's regime for medical devices pre-empted all state lawsuits and was allowed to be marketed but caused physical injuries. i was t

he was joined by justices scalia, thomas, of lido, and chief justice roberts. -- alito, and chief justice roberts. the morgue liberal judges were in the dissent. justice ginsburg wrote the dissent. she you read a summary from the bench. she said that the city had adequate basis to fear that it would have been successfully sued by the black firefighters. she had somewhat of a different standard for the employer to meet. she said that the majority's strong basis in evidence test went too far. she said that the city had ample evidence that its test might be flawed. her reasoning was a little bit different from soda meyer and the other courts. her and the district -- sotomayor and the other courts. they were intending to avoid being susceptible to a lawsuit. she said that instead what the city needs to do is focus on the evidence about whether it could be sued successfully. she said that the city's actions were justified. >> of this was watched because of the role of sotomayor in deciding cases at the second circuit level. what does this mean for her nomination? >> you will hear a lot of disc

maybe i should complement you over justice scalia who thinks that nothing we say makes a difference. even if you accept number 2 legislative history, employer request, it seems to me the type of material usually requested in foia is much less sensitive than a material where an allocation of a state secret is asserted by the government. doesn't it concern you that we would be having different standards if we have different types of weight to be accorded to government assertions or administration assertions when records or information are attempted to be sold from the government? >> i am not sure, i simply don't have the experience although i have encountered both kinds of cases, foia exemption i and a former state secrets but i don't have the experience to validate what you say, that somehow state secrets are likely to involve much more sensitive material. my chief experience with foia, there were sensitive materials race in some of those cases including the helicopter rescue of the people at the end of the carter administration. i want to make another point, the jefferson case, if i

applied challenge in wisconsin to suggest that movies really have a different standard because, as justice scalia said, this isn't about willing listeners, willing speakers, the constitution protects that as sacrosanct, and the final out reach movies. the downside of that from those who want to regulate campaign finance, we will see a lot more movies like the hillary movie around election time. it is possible that this case could be used as a vehicle for overturning the decision. when we talk about the personnel of the court, it is important to understand it is different in important respects from justice o'connor and already seems to be much less sympathetic to campaign finance restrictions than justice o'connor. the context in which we might see a decision reversing mccain, another issue that came out of the oral argument is many of the justices became very uncomfortable when they realized the theory of the mcconnell case would allow the government to prevent even books, love alone fillms, from coming out before election, that underscores the oddity of first amendment doctrine for some time, th

justice kennedy wrote the opinion joined by justices scalia, thomas, alito. what we think of the court's more liberal wing justices were in the dissent. >> who wrote the dissent, and what did it say? >> justice ginsburg wrote the dissent. she read a summary of it from the bench, which is an unusual step that only happens a few times a term. she said that the city had adequate basis to fear that it would have been successfully sued by the black firefighters. she had a somewhat different standard for an employer to me. she said that the majority's strong base in evidence tests went too far. she said the city had ample evidence that its test might be flawed, and her reasoning was a little bit different from the lower court. the appeals court's focus on the city's intent, that it did not intend to -- that it was intended to avoid being susceptible to a lawsuit, and she said that instead, the city needs to focus on the evidence about whether it could be sued successfully. again, the bottom line was basically the same. she said that the city's actions were justified

again, i would be surprised if she decided with justice scalia and thompson. but when you are on the supreme court you are not bound by precedent in the same way as an appeals court. so the jury is out on that. as far as her role of the tax capital -- >> [inaudible] ask >> she was a judge in southern new york. they hear appeals. she's gotten a lot of experience there. from what i have skeen in some cases she has taken more of a pro plaintiff view, at least more of a pro shareholder view. so based on her past record that's where i anticipate her coming in. once again on the supreme court all bets are off. based on her track record that's the approach she seems to have taken to date. any other questions? >> you mentioned judge wood and kagan. do you think they are on the short list? looking down the road when justice stevens retires or justice ginsburg? what's the scuttlebutt about who would be on the short list for those spots? >> president obama will have an opportunity to make another appointment. that question of who's the next one going to be is something i

justice scalia once remarked that not infrequently a lawyer who has done a terrible job in brief and oral argument wins the case. and you know he's going back to the client and say you know, while we did it for you again, scalia then there's no market for the argument or oral presentation. it's but who has the better case. so given the arguments by the campaign, couldn't the justices sweep by his faulty arguments, which is sort of leads to the question of what role do the world arguments have been supreme court decision making. >> that is a never-ending debate and i think the general action is [inaudible] i think my chapter reports on a case where the oral argument might have lost, somebody with more persuasive argument might have flipped one boat that is all we would have needed but overall it is just the point is clear there have been many cases we could count hundreds probably where the poor oral argument when somebody makes a poor oral argument -- [inaudible] the case is on his or her side but i think that still doesn't answer the whole point. >> of justice paul once told me it m

about whether there is a difference between the two pairs on the conservative side of the court, justice scalia and thomas, and then chief justice roberts and justice

among the four conservatives, chief justice roberts 12, justice thomas, 13, justice alito 13, justice scalia, 14. on the lib al end of the court, justice briar, 18, justice ginsburg, 22 or 23, depending on how you count her soet in the strip search case where she voted to find it a constitutional violation but dissented from the qualifying immunity, justice souter, 24. just see develops, 26 or 27. they have chectsively dissented 52 times and on the liberal side of the court they have dissented 92 times. justice kennedy has cast four dissenting votes in the entire term. so kennedy's role as the so-called median justice is really extraordinary and i covered the court, as dick indicated for many years, for 30 years, and i have never quite seen anything like this. it is a polarized court. of the 72 decisions that have come down so far, 21 have been by a vote of 5-4. of those 21, 16 have been by the usual four versus the usual four, as i outlined earlier with justice kennedy casting the deciding vote, an of those 16, and with justice kennedy casting the deciding vote, he went with the conservativ

among the four conservatives, chief justice roberts 12, justice thomas 13, justice alito 13, justice scalia 14. on the liberal end, breyer 18, beginsberg 22 or 23 depending how you count ver vote in the strip search case where she dissented from the final being of qualify immunity, suiter 24, stevens, same caveat as justice beginsberg, 26 or 27. to sum those up, on the conservative side of the court, they have collectively dissented 52 times. on the liberal side of the court, they have collectively dissented 90 or 92 times. justice kennedy has cast four dissenting votes in the entire term. so kennedy's role as the so-called median justice is really extraordinary and i covered the court, as dick indicated, for 30 years and i have never quite seen anything like this. it's a polarized court of the 72 decisions that have come down so far, 21 have been by vote of 5-4. of those 21, 16 have been by the usual four versus the usually four as i outlined earlier with justice kennedy casting the deciding vote. of those 16 in which justice kennedy cast the deciding vote, he went with the conservative si

and then chief justice rehnquist died in roberts was moved to the chief justice chair and then justice scalia was nominated to fill o'connor seeds and then you have the two bush appointees on the court to. so that was the conclusion of the concluding chapter of the rehnquist court of the beginning of the roberts court to. what i thought i would to before i turn to the panel is to give you a glimpse, some of these will be familiar and some may not be, not so much about how the court has changed in doctrinal terms, not to talk of the cases of doctrine but in many ways what a profoundly different chord it is recorded was in 1969. in terms of who is on the course and how they do their business. the first place has been a complete turnover, there are no warren court justices left. indeed, i think there is known on the present four to behaves like the warren court justice. i think there are no thurgood marshall and william brennan on the present court. secondly is a the justices background i was intrigued by chief justice roberts answer to that question put from the audience a few minutes ago about

maybe i should complement you as its starting to sound like justice scalia who doesn't think anything we say over here makes any difference when a matter gets to court. but, even a few accept legislative history using substantial weight and a foia request it seems to me the type of material usually requested in foia is much less sensitive than a material where an allegation of a state secret is asserted by the government. and doesn't it concern you that we would be having different standards if we have different types of wheat to the kuwait that are to be to government or administration concessions when records or information are attempted to be sought from the government? >> well, number 1i am not sure i simply don't have the experience although i've encountered both cases on the bench, both foia exemption one and a form of state secrets, but i don't have the wide experience to validate what you say that somehow state secrets are likely to involve much more sensitive material. in fact, my chief experiences with foia exception one, and there were some very sensitive materials raised i

appointing a woman to be on the supreme court, it is very relevant that i got a hold of supreme court justice scalia will be spoke before a large packed bar room -- he followed, this is good for businessmen, this is good for businessmen, for each issue and height ascham, are you aware that there are women in business -- and i asked him, are you aware that there are women in business? i asked him, are you aware that you only considered businessmen, do you know there are women business owners, including myself. that made "a washington post" because his response was, i'm an original list, and only believe in issues our forefathers are concerned about and i told him -- i didn't stop and i told him that there were no foremothers. and i also heard his response, and that is what "washington post" picked up. his response is that this woman wants me to throw out the constitution. just when to share this with you. so we need a different breed of supreme court justices who understand this current period. a bad story -- that was the good one from may. a bad story is my company celebrated the 50th anniversary, w

and that's justice justice scalia said this opinion will cost american lives. that was a bold statement by scalia but he's right. we should not allow this to hurt american soldiers and american people and put innocent lives at risk even though it may get some applause overseas from people who would not mind seeing america disappear. and i want to touch very quickly on the photographs. we believe in america that guilty people should be punished and people who tortured are treated prisoners inhumanely have been punished and are being punished. but if those photographs are released iwill be blood on this administration's hands for punishing innocent soldiers who had nothing to do with it, and we should not have or allow this administration to hurt innocent soldiers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: madam chairman, i yield two minutes to a member of the appropriations committee, mr. akin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: i apprecia

thirdly, one hears popular or press commentary distinguishing two pairs of justices on the court, scalia and thomas on the one hand

ginsberg was on television, justice meyers participated in "fox news sunday," a debate between justice scalia was available for viewing on the web. there is no doubt of the enormous public interest in what television -- in what the supreme court does when the case of bush v. gore was decided, the block surrounding the supreme court chambers across the green from the senate was loaded with television trucks. although the cameras couldn't get inside, there was tremendous public concern. and the decisions of the court are on all of the cutting edge issues of the day. the court decides executive power, congressional powrks defendant's rights, habeas corpus, civil rights, voting rights, affirmative action, abortion, and the list could go on and on. in both the 109th and 110th congress, i introduced legislation calling for the court to be televised. twice it was reported favorably out of committee, but neither time reached the floor of the united states senate. and i intend to reintroduce the legislation and intend to -- to pursue it. a number of justices have commented about the television. justic