kagan would be. and i wish you well and look forward to the rest of these hearings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i like to begin with a word about senator byrd. i served on the appropriations committee for 16 out of my 18 years in the senate. senator byrd was the chairman, he was tough, he was strong, he cared. many times the constitution popped out of his vest pocket. he certainly was -- i think in anyone's book a titan in the senate. and he's left an indelible imprint. he will be missed. today let's welcome elena kagan. over the past few weeks, there's been a drift net out trying to find some disqualifying fact or fact. but to date, i don'believe any such factor has bn found. i believe that you were imminently confirmable. your experience, i believe, makes you a very strong nominee for the court. you're the first woman solicitor general of the united states. and the solicitor general ithe only federal official that's required in statute to be "learned in the law." of the 45 peoe who ha

in closing, i look forward to a thorough and fair examination of miss kagan's record of miss kagan's record, and i want to thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member sessions for adjusting your schedules to allow senator kerry and i to come before you. thank you. >> thank you very much, and you're the one -- i thank you both for being here, and i appreciate that and then the staff will re-set the table. if we can invite miss kagan back to the table. >>> i would note that we come now to really the beginning what is for all senators one of the most important and most cherished part of our duties, the advice and consent. i stated at the beginning of this hearing there's only one person who could nominate someone to the supreme court and that person will affect 300 million americans, but only 100 of us get to vote. that process will begin now. solicitor general, police please stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you. p

today we saw elena kagan on capitol hill. one of the questions that were asked or raised about her background is whether she indeed, where she would come down in this second amendment fight. what did you hear? what do you believe? >> after watching sotomayor, i honestly believe the change that president obama is bringing to washington is contradictory to the change he promised on the campaign trail where he promised and they gave flyers to americans all over the country saying he would always support the second amendment. his first nominee.... >> ifill: what about elena kagan? >> there's nothing in her track record that believes she'll be supportive. i'm a second amendment absolutist. i don't want anyone on the supreme court that will not support that. >> president obama hasn't done a thing about the second amendment since he's been in. he's not even will to go talk about gun violence. we're wait to go hear more of her testimony. sounds like she'll be open minded. >> she said heller is settled law. >> if i were taking a law s

talking about elena kagan. caller: i am really upset that democrats never seem to be able to get "activist judges" and the republicans seem always to be able to get activist judges, pro-business and we cannot seem to get a candidate like that. i'm really upset with her selection but i do understand it, because her paper trail is so thin. i think after sonia sotomayor, barack somebody who -- one as somebody without a paper trail. host: what you mean by activist judges? caller: the case that she lost, saying corporations are basically people, that is pro- republican. it just really irritates me that people like jeff sessions are coming out and talking about activist judges but when they put roberts and alito, the activist judges to me as a liberal. host: thanks. jess bravin. guest: activist judges is a term that gets thrown around a lot. actually president obama in his book "audacity of hope, " he said an activist judge is a judge that rules against you, in effect. as a journalist would try to stay away from that

senator leahy was with kagan you do have some people with real continuity. i think the most interesting person to watch or one of the most interesting people to watch could be arlen specter. he has lost his primary. he voted against kagan for solicitor general, and it will be interesting to see if he will come off as the prosecutor. does he tell the party line? that should be interesting to watch. >> she said -- he suspects she will say it is settled law. you think that is the big issue that will be controversial in these hearings? >> i did not know if it is the big issue. it is always a big issue whenever you have a supreme court nomination, i think along with other issues that could come up that would be hot button, such as campaign finance and free speech, the place of religion and separation of church and state. i think those are all issues, but you heard him say he thought she would say it settled law. that is close before the supreme court decided on that and i am not going to go -- that is cospeak for, "the supreme court decided on that and i am not g

the republicans tried to pin elena kagan down on a number of things. jeff sessions, who is the ranking republican on the committee, went after once again her policy of ... at harvard while she was dean of the harvard law school of limiting the access that military recruiters had to law students. how far did he get? >> well, i think he may have scored some points just partly because he was so persistent in trying to make it clear that he believes that she actually violated a congressional statute. the solomon amendment . after a federal appellate court had made a ruling finding that the statute was unconstitutional, elena kagan went and returned to harvard's prior policy of not granting the military equal access. she tried to explain that she really wasn't violating the statute, that she returned to a policy that she believed the department of defense had okayed basically for a number of years before that court challenge. >> woodruff: it came down to, in part, it came down to deference to a circuit court, an appellate court ruling, that said was the rea

kagan wrote. it was also something the clinton administration could bring about, she suggested, by simply having the f.c.c. issue a new regulation or by adding such a provision to legislation the white house was helping to craft. but this wasn't the only way in which ms. kagan thought about stacking the deck to help democrats over republicans at the time. another note reveals her approach to the issue of soft money, the money political parties used to spend outside of federal elections. ms. kagan's notes show that she thought banning it would hurt republicans and helpdemocrats. her notes indicate that the soft money ban would hurt republicans and help democrats. she even seemed to delight in the prospect of finding ways to disadvantage republicans. here's what she wrote in her notes. quote -- "soft money ban, affects republicans, not democrats." and if i had this quote up on a chart, you would see that she punctuated the sentence with an exclamation point. so let me repeat that quote one more time

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

kagan's experience. i have never believed it to be a disqualification -- if you do not have judicial experience. 39 supreme court justices -- about 1/3 -- had no previous judicial experience. what they did have was extensive experience in the actual practice of law, an average of more than 20 years. these are justices such as george sutherland, one of my predecessors as u.s. senator from utah, who practiced for 23 years, or robert jackson, who practiced for 21 years and served as both solicitor general and attorney general. in other words, supreme court justices have had experience behind the bench as a judge before the bench -- as a judge, before the bench as a lawyer, or both. miss kagan has neighter. spent -- has neither. she never argued a case before becoming solicitor general last year. in working with the clinton administration, she focused on policy and legislation. ms. kagan would bring to the court experience "in the political circuits that often defines washington." some people may see little

kagan as justice stevens replacement. this is half an hour. [applause] >> what do you say when you introduce a man who has been coming to these events for more than 50 years? [laughter] everything that is interesting has already been said. likely, not -- everything that is not interesting has been said, too. [laughter] i will be brief. john paul stevens is a man of chicago, born and raised in hyde park. he attended the university of chicago laboratory schools. he attended the 1932 world series, which the cubs lost. [laughter] in fact, no one in this room was alive when the cubs won their last world series. [laughter] john paul stevens attended jakarta -- college in chicago, law school in chicago, practiced in chicago and served for five years, on the senate. even after he was dragged off to washington in 1975, he remained our circuit justice. this year, he became the second justice to reach the age of 90 while in active service. the other was oliver wendell holmes. [applause] his predecessors in his seat on the supreme court were louis brandei

if you want to get more on the elena kagan nomination you can go to c-span.org/kagan. we are keeping track of all the developments in the hearing, and will explain some terms as they come up in the questioning. it is the second day of questioning. back to the ruling and more editorials. this from the washington times -- a new battleground for guns rights. the conclusion is this -- the story is the same throughout the country an explanation is all too simple. ajay is joining us from memphis, tenn. on the republican line. caller: thank you. the only issue i have with this ruling is it should have been 9- 0 against the city of chicago. the bill of rights is very specific and that is a personal right. when i hear the liberals talking that this is the government impinging on the will of the states, that argument does not hold because the 10th amendment says those powers are not directly given to the government are given directly to the states and people. the second amendment specifically gives this right to the people so that states cannot infringe upon a. it is obvious tho

miss kagan, let me welcome you here today.his nomination is certainly a proud day for you and your family and friends and rightfully so. i enjoyed very much our meeting a few weeks ago and appreciated the chance to talk with you then. mr. chairman, thank you for your work on this nomination. republicans are committeed to conducting this hearing in a respectful manner. serious questions will be asked, miss kagan will be given ample opportunity to respond. she certainly has numerous talents and good qualities but there are concerns about this nomination. she has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years. it is not just that the nominee has not been a judge. she has barely practiced law and not with the intensity and duration from which i think real legal understanding occurs. miss kagan has never tried a case before the jury. while academia has value there is no substitute i think for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of years and what the record does reveal is a more extensi

. >> larry: tonight, supreme court nominee elena kagan on the hot seat. highly partisan highly political hearings under way. >> i will do my best to consider every case impartially. >> larry: plus a landmark decision from the high court. gun owners win it. then, a 7 year old vanishes from school three weeks and thousands of it tips later his disappearance still a mystery. does the second grader's stepmom know something that could help find him? next on "larry king live." good evening. today's confirmation hearings were devoted to opening statements by committee members and nominee elena kagan herself, if confirmed, kagan will succeed justice john paul stevens retiring after 35 years on the court. here to talk about it is james carville, cnn political contributor and democratic strategist and a conservative talk show host and organizer with the tea party coalition and back in l.a., stephanie miller, host of her own program and we go to las vegas with the libertarian talkative half playing at the hotel and casino in vegas. they also have a series on showtim

talking about elena kagan.caller: i am really upset that democrats never seem to be able to get "activist judges" and the republicans seem always to be able to get activist judges, pro-business and we cannot seem to get a candidate like that. i'm really upset with her selection but i do understand it, because her paper trail is so thin. i think after sonia sotomayor, barack somebody who -- one as somebody without a paper trail. host: what you mean by activi judges? caller: the case that she lt, saying corporations are basically people, that is pro- republican. it just really irritates me that people like jeff sessions are coming out and talking about activist judges but when they put roberts and alito, the activist judges to me as a liberal. host: thanks. jess bravin. guest: activist judges is a term that gets thrown around a lot. actually president obama in his book "audacity of hope, " he said an activist judge is a judge that rules against you, in effect. as a journalist would try to stay away from that term

kagan hearings near. in advance of that, c-span has worked with a polling company, robert green is the principle, to do a new public opinion poll about the supreme court public knowledge and attitudes. thank you r being with us. guest: thank you. host: a couple of major findings. first of all, if we could go to the details -- which of the three branches of the federal government is best serving the public interest. what did you find question on guest: we found that of the three, the judiciary was seen as best serving the public's interest. 48% said the judiciary branch. 27, the legislative. 25, executive. host: did the data tell you why that was? guest: there were some additional questions that gave insights. of the three -- i would say at the time, it is fair to say, it's fair amount of public dissatisfaction with the government, the federal government, and of the three branches, the one that is the one the best is the judiciary, in their view. host: another finding of this poll -- tell people about h ma

do you think it will affect the kagan nomination? >> you know, it could.t depends on as you say how much of this is just a show this kagan thing or how much they're really serious. to me she's very sent rift. >> we'll go back to kagan and review other issues of the day. the general fired by the president and retired from public life today. we'll talk about that, too. don't go away. [ female announcer ] lunch at red lobster... it's laughs over a coastal soup and grilled shrimp salad. catching up over wood-grilled shrimp and chicken. and with lunches starting at just $6.99... it's an hour you wouldn't trade for anything. ♪ [ bank associate ] welcome to the greater offshore bank and trust. [ bank associate ] right now, we're offering you $500 just to open an account. [ bank associate ] we just need your most intimate personal information. driver's license number. do you have any credit cards on you? just put both of those numbers right here. we're doing a dna scan. we just need a hair sample. great, will you put that in there? [ bank associate ] your first bo

gipping day one for the kagan hearings. expect it to wrap up by thursday according to patrick leahy. this story at the kagan hearing, the topic may be obama and roberts. the nominee is usually the star but elena kagan may well be a supporting actress featuring chief justice john roberts jr and bust a many gut. which begins tomorrow to put robers and his court on trial. republicans will put mr. obama on trial in what he views as his big agenda. + and -- independent enough to keep that agenda in check. henry is joining us from hot springs, arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment and a plan. host: ok. caller: i'm going to change the whole perspective on theeterm limits and thousand congress should be run. after the elections, and in all states and for whatever position in congress, there no longer will be any term onments. they would be put on hourly pay. give them a good hourly pay, but then 2007 privilege and the power to fair to them, if they don't performance well. right now term limits. all these pe

miss kagan, let me welcome you here today. this nomination is certainly a proud day for you and your family and friends and rightfully so. i enjoyed very much our meeting a few weeks ago and appreciated the chance to talk with you then. mr. chairman, thank you for your work on this nomination. republicans are committeed to conducting this hearing in a respectful manner. serious questions will be asked, miss kagan will be given ample opportunity to respond. she certainly has numerous talents and good qualities but there are concerns about this nomination. she has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years. it is not just that the nominee has not been a judge. she has barely practiced law and not with the intensity and duration from which i think real legal understanding occurs. miss kagan has never tried a case before the jury. while academia has value there is no substitute i think for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of years and what the record does reveal is a more exten

kagan, this is an issue we discussed weeks ago. this is an issue i raised in a series of letters which i'll put into the record. this is a standard which has been around for a long time, and you know a lot of law. senator grassley established that. is it a satisfactory test? let me move on to another question. i don't think i'm making to much progress. one of the grave concerns which has risen out of the -- out of recent confirmation proceedings with chief justice roberts and justice alito, and i've spoken about this subject extensively on the floor citing how emphatic chief justice roberts and justice alito were on deferring to congress. it's a legislative function. it's not a judicial function, they say. if you engage in fact-finding, if the court does that, the court is transgressing into the congressional area. and then you have a case like citizens united and others, and you have the declarations by the chief justice of modesty. you've adopt that had standard. his more emphatic citizen was not to jolt the system. is there any

i see the release of these kagan documents. it is overwhelming that we continue to nominate activists into the supreme court. because of the release of these documents, this nomination of her should be revoked. host: let me if step in. how do defined activist, and how do you know if she is one of them? caller: when you read what she stood for in the past, and this goes for any conservative or liberal activist nominated to the supreme court. once they get in there, they begin to legislate from the bench. we can see that this will come from the release of these documents. we do not need that. we need more independents that are on an equal boundary where they cannot be swayed by a party. host: have you read, or will you read these particular documents? caller: i have not read all of them, but i have read enough to know that she is an activist. this is going to be a problem. i just wanted to know julie's take on all of these activists being nominated. we all know that they legislate from the bench. guest: you make an interesting po

general kagan brings pragmatism and moderation to a court in need of both. her down-to-earth views and leadership skills mean this, elena kagan has a great potential to moderate a court veering out of the mainstream and bringing it back to the 21st century are. she is the right person at the right time. we have seen several examples of elena kagan's moderation and pragmatism already. the one i like best is a practical one, of course, while serving as the first dean of harvard law school, a difficult enough ta by itself, she was able to repair a deeply and ideologically divided faculty. because of dean kagan's acumen and great good sense, she broke a hiring logjam, often between the right and the left. and harvard was able to hire 43 new professors during her tenure, including notable conservatives like jack goldsmith and john manning. she diversified the faculty, advanced academic scholarship, improved the quality of the school and improveded tone of the school as well. dean kagan routinely received warm receptions and large owe vacations from the federalist

isn't elena kagan on the side of the torture of memos? she sounds like president obama's harriet miers, almost. guest: she is a political insider in many ways and someone the president can be -- can trust. most of us don't know what she is about. that does reflect what harriet miers' position was. i don't think elena kagan had anything to do with torture memos. host: would you say you are funded by conservatives or leftists? guest: i am not privy to that information. our philosophy is one that should be equally applicable to conservatives or illegal -- or liberals. when you see someone who has a dual approach, you see them taking positions that do not live up with republicans or democrats party lines. the philosophy of taking a position pro the constitution sometimes makes them a liberal. in overturning or of holding loss that they might differ with, they were in favor of the matter called marijuana case because there is an issue of federalism that goes to the constitutional philosophy, not just a conservative policy. host: the republican

kimberly kagan is the president of the institute for the study of war, a washington think tank. she was last in afghanistan in march. and greg jaffe is a military reporter for the "washington post." he's also co-author a book that profiled general petraeus: "the fourth star: four generals and the epic struggle for the future of the united states army." thank you all three for being with us. greg jaffe, to you first. remind us what general petraeus' leadership style is. >> well, you know, he's very good politically. i mean, one of the things i think he did a great job with and i think pete mansoor can talk about this in depth is establish a relationship with p.m. maliki that wasn't always a comfortable and happy relationship. but i think he was able to push maliki, along with the u.s. ambassador there, ryan rocker, to really do things that were both in the iraqis interest and in the broader u.s. interest. so that's critical. he's also very good at getting a few big ideas out to the troops. getting their sort of buy-in and getting this kind of sprawling force moving in the same di

. >> reporter: and now one of his former clerks solicitor general elena kagan is president obama's nominee to follow in his footsteps. >> thurgood marshall who did more to promote justice over the course of his legal career than did any lawyer in his lifetime. >> brown: marshal's legacy will surely resurface during the upcoming confirmation hearings. in the meantime theater-goers

. >> next, a supreme court nominee elena kagan and associate justice antonin scalia on campaign finance. >> these expenditures would corrupt the federal system. congress has a self interest. we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amendment area precisely because we are -- at least i am. i doubt that one can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents. is that excessively cynical of me? i do not think so. >> i think justice scalia is wrong. in fact, corporate and union money go overwhelmingly to incumbents. this may be the single most self-denying thing congress has ever done. if you look at the last election cycle and look at corporate tax money and ask for it goes, it goes 10 times more to incumbents and challengers. in the prior election cycle, even more than that, and for an obvious reason. when corporations plate in the political process, they want winners. they want people who will produce outcomes. they know the way to get those outcomes is to invest in incumbents. that is what they do, in double digits times more than the

>> i think they should pay attention to elena kagan's record in her testimony. under our constitution, the senate is entrusted with the process of providing advice and consent, and i am absolutely confident that if you give a fair reading, elena kagan's record and her performance in every job she has had, what you see is somebody with an extraordinarily powerball intellect, somebody with good judgment, somebody understands the impact that laws have on individual americans, somebody who is able to broker understandings between people of very different ideological balance -- bents, someone who is extremely hardworking, extremely diligent, knows how to build consensus, has been an outstanding lawyer, has been an outstanding team of one of our top law schools. even though this is my alma mater, it

the case against kagan. mr.illyer, it seems, before we get into the specifics, it seems that not a lot of people have paid attention to this supreme court nominees. that affair statement? >> i think that's fair with the oil spill in the gulf and everything going on in afghanistan. this just hasn't made it to the top of the news. next week, it will. the hearings start. host: case against kagan. this is what the washington times and i presume you wrote this one. this is what quin hillyer and the washington times write. kagan is too political, too leftist and too experienced and too disrespectful towards existing law to be confirmd for the u.s. supreme court. let's take that one-by-one. too political? guest: too political. the memos from both her time with chief justice marshall, and her time at the clinton white house show that she consistently is results oriented where she tries to figure out what political results she wants to get and then tries to twist the law to get there. rather than starting with the law an

kagan is leaving herself more of an elfin sotomayor last year. host: debut here optimism in her response? -- did you hear optimism? guest: it would have been surprising to hear her say, the decisions were wrongly decided and i want to overturn them. that is not the kind of thing nominees say. she said would be expected. it is appropriate for her not to express a view about whether they were good or bad law given that she is not on the court yet. she will have to look at those issues when she gets on the court. but what is also the law is the language in both of those decisions saying that reasonable regulation is still permissible. i would add that regulations the district of columbia enacted after their handgun ban was thrown out, which we think are common-sense regulations, were actually up held by a federal judge in the district of columbia as being consistent with the heller decision. it will go up on appeal. it could go to the supreme court. we think the court has sent strong signals to the lower court twice that although handgun bans may be

kagan: i rise in strong support of the perlmutter-klein-kagan amendment. why? it's exactly the medicine we need in our economy right now. small businesses in wisconsin, small businesses in colorado and across the country, are looking for access to credit at a price they can afford to pay. and right now our community banks are unable to lend. not because of their own activity, but because the bad judgment of big banks on wall street. main street community banks and main street small businesses should not have to continue to pay for the mistakes of wall street. the perlmutter amendment would allow community banks under $10 billion of assets to amortize potential losses over six years and up to 10 years if they increase their lending to small businesses. we get it. we understand that small businesses are the economic engines of this country. it's time to give small business the opportunity to grow our economy and the jobs we need to work our way back into prosperity. i would urge a strong yes vote on this amendment. yield back. mr. perlmutter: how much time do i h

kagan, you didn't do what the dod asked you to do. just answer this -- put your legal hat on for a second. the third circuit opinion never stated the enforcement of the solomon amendment at harvard, did it? did that law remain in effect? >> senator sessions, the question was -- >> no, that's my question to you. did the law remain in effect at all times at harvard? >> the solomon amendment remained in effect, but we had always thought that we were acting in compliance with the solomon amendment, and for many, many years dod agreed with us. after the third circuit, i thought it was appropriate to go back to our old policy, which previously dod had thought complied with the solomon amendment. when dod came to us and said, no, the third circuit hasn't changed matters because we're going to take this to the supreme court, and we want the law schools really to ignore what the third circuit said, dod and we had some discussions, and we went back to doing it exactly the way dod wanted it to. >> let's get more basic about it. the military, you

host: elena kagan's nomination wiil go before the senate judiciary committee two weeks from tomorrow. by all accounts, she will be confirmed as the next associate justice and the supreme court. guest: a painful irony that the stevens seat will be filled by miss kagan and it will move to the right. very few legal analyst will disagree with a clear analysis that stevens has been a much more of strong civil libertarian than kagan. er than elena kagan it is a sad day when a democrat in the white house mak a t the supreme court toove an overly nservative, court furtro rit. host: is the presiie of x in? if you put someonen oo far to face at could publican libuster? guest of the president x in. dide what is wrt fighting f. he hasbeen willing to fight fo nhingand not for othe. fewoments we heard out w the he also has broken many of his good campaign promises, but not broken the one to escalate the war. the president and sometimes unfortunately the excess of apologists make excuses for him. he can fight on capitol hill when he wants to. he could fight for genuiie civil llbertarians for the sup

>> i think that they should pay attention to delana rigid elena -- eleana kagan's testimony. the senate is entrusted with advice and consent. i am absolutely confident if we give a fair reading of elena kagan's performance in every job she has had, she is someone with extraordinarily powerful intellect, someone with good judgment, somebody who understands the impact that loss -- laws have on ordinary americans, have been broker understanding between people of different ideological bent, someone who is extremely hard- working, extremely diligent, extremely personable, knows how to build consensus, has been an outstanding lawyer, an outstanding team of one of our top law schools -- and it is just one of. . >> i expect that my republican colleagues and my democratic colleagues should ask for tough questions and listen to her testimony, go through the record, go through all the documents that have been provided and then vote their conscience. >> [unintelligible] don't -- >> both their conscience. >> i have a question with two parts, if i may. >> but they are related. [laughter] >

kagan, this is an issue we discussed weeks ago. this is an issue i raised in a series of letters which i'll put into the record. this is a standard which has been around for a long time, and you know a lot of law. senator grassley established that. is it a satisfactory test? let me move on to another question. i don't think i'm making too much progress. one of the grave concerns which has risen out of the -- out of recent confirmation proceedings with chief justice roberts and justice alito, and i've spoken about this subject extensively on the floor citing how emphatic chief justice roberts and justice alito were on deferring to congress. it's a legislative function. it's not a judicial function, they say. if you engage in fact-finding, if the court does that, the court is transgressing into the congressional area. and then you have a case like citizens united and others, and you have the declarations by the chief justice of modesty. you've adopt that had standard. his more emphatic citizen was not to jolt the system. is there any

said no they didn't get a job. >> brown: one person who did get the job was the new nominee, elena kagan. lawrence fishburn declined to offer her any advice. he's the actor, remember. if she's so inclined she can now watch her former boss in action. >> color makes no difference in so far as this court is concerned. >> brown: and see him come to life on stage. >> woodruff: in fact, supreme court nominee kagan was in the audience at the kennedy center last week. performances of "thurgood" continue through sunday. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. president obama began a two-day trip to gulf coast states, and planned a primetime speech tomorrow night on the oil spill. white house aides said b.p. now seems willing to set up a huge escrow fund to pay for damages from the disaster. and officials in the central asian nation of kyrgyzstan reported at least 138 people dead and 1,800 hurt in ethnic violence since last week. the newshour is always online. hari sreenivasan, in our newsroom, previews what's there. hari? >> sreenivasan: another soccer story: this one is about nort

the case against kagan. mr. hillyer, it seems, before we get into the specifics, it seems that not a lot of people have paid attention to this supreme court nominees. that affair statement? >> i think that's fair with the oil spill in the gulf and everything going on in afghanistan. this just hasn't made it to the top of the news. next week, it will. the hearings start. host: case against kagan. this is what the washington times and i presume you wrote this one. this is what quin hillyer and the washington times wre. kagan is too political, too leftist and too experienced and too disrespectful towards existing law to beconfirmd for the u.s. supreme court. let's take that one-by-one. too political? guest: too political. the memos from both her time with chief justice marshall, and he time at the clinton white house show that she consistently is results oriented where she tries to figure out what political results she wants to get and then tries to twist the law to get there. rather than starting with the law and

you can also watched by elena kagan's previous c-span appearances -- you can also watch kagan's previousc-span appearances. >> west virginia senator robert byrd serve more than 50 years in the u.s. senate, longer than anyone in history. he appeared on c-span more than 1200 times, along with speeches from the senate floor and congressional hearings. watch our 1988 profile with the senator and his "book notes" interview on the history of the senator. >> c-span. our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online, and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube, and sign up for our scheduler e-mails add c-span.org -- at c-span.org. >> in remarks today, the house majority leader set america's debt is a national security threat and that a balanced approach is needed to address the problem. following his remarks, he took questions from the audience on collateral damage in afghanistan, military tribunals, and guantanamo bay detainees. he spoke at the center for strategic and international studies for about 25 minutes. >> heard i was coming, huh? >> he's g

does jobe the nomination of elena kagan will go up -- host: the nomination of elena kagan will go up in two weeks. what is your reaction to her pick? guest: a painful irony that the stevens seek as filled by elena katelynn will move to the right. very few legal analysts will disagree with the clear analysis that see it -- stevens has been a stronger civil liberties of order than elena kagan. it is a sad day when a democrat in the white house makes a nomination to the supreme court to move an overly conservative, right-wing court further to the right. host: is the presiient of box in? if you put someone in too far to the left, he could face a republican filibuster? guest of the president fox himself in. he needs to decide what is worth fighting for. he has been willing to fight for certain things and not for others. a few moments ago we heard about how the campaign to send more troops to afghanistan. he has broken a good campaign promises. i think that the president is in excess of apologist. he can fight on capitol hill. he could fight for a general libertarian to go the supreme cour

gop bears down as kagan hearings near. in advance of that, c-span has worked with a polling company, robert green is the principle, to do a new public opinion poll about the supreme court public knowledge and attitudes. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: a couple of major findings. first of all, if we could go to the details -- which of the three branches of the federal government is best serving the public interest. what did you find question on guest: we found that of the three, the judiciary was seen as best serving the public's interest. 48% said the judiciary branch. 27, the legislative. 25, executive. host: did the data tell you why that was? guest: there were some additional questions that gave insights. of the three -- i would say at the time, it is fair to say, it's fair amount of public dissatisfaction with the government, the federal government, and of the three branches, the one that is the one the best is the judiciary, in their view. host: another finding of this poll -- tell people about ho

with the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee an elena kagan coming up later this month, this sunday, c-span takes you inside the supreme courr to see public spaces and rarely seen places. hear from the justices as they describe the court, the building and its history. that is this sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern, on c-span. >> thursday, bp ceo tunny hayward is scceddled to testify on capitol hill. testify on capitol hill. that will be live at 10:00 a.m. perspectives on an effort by the fcc to regulate broadband services. our guests are walter mccormick and kathy sloan. >> well, as the federal communications commission moves closer to reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service, we are joined by two guests who will be discussing hat. walter mccormick is the presideet andcaeo -- and ceo of the telecommunications group. >> we represent the nation puts a broadband service providers. we provide service in urban areas -- nation's broadband service providers. areas and urban areas.rural >> is broadband is reclassified as title ii, what time do you perceive to your member com

as i just showed you -- "gop bears down on kagan." you asked how many could name the individual president obama nominated. these numbers are pretty impressive lead tilted. -- yes, only 19% could identify -- we ask the same question a year ago with justice sotomayor, an 24% drop from last year. in other words, only 19% could coorectly name elena kagan as the potential to -- as a nominee, excuse me, to the court, a potential justice. host: it has its work cut out to stir public interest by monday. over all, it is it because people are not adjusted who is being nominated tohe court? what is your additional questions tell you about public interest? guest: i would say, yes, there are a series of other stores that have simply dominated the news. i think sotomayor's nomination -- obviously both women nominees. at the time of the respective nominations. but simply other news this crowding out the nomination. host: last question. we don't have it on a graphic. but you could tell us a statistic, when you ask people today whether it matters and

. >>> the president's skourtd nominee, elena kagan, goes before the senate judiciary committee mondayessions, says kagan has serious deficiencies citing her liberal leanings and the fact that she's never been a judge. he's not ruling out a republican filibuster. others say she's brilliant, qualified and mainstream. >>> a judge in peru has upheld the murder convention of joran van der sloot which means he will stay in jail pending his trial. the 22-year-old is charged with killing a young peruvian woman. he has said authorities violated his rights during his confession. van der sloot also a suspect in the natalee holloway case, but he hasn't been charged. she is the alabama teen who disappeared in aruba five years ago. >>> those are the headlines. i'm drew griffin. ♪ you touched my life with your heart, smile even though it's breaking when there are clouds in the sky you'll get by ♪ ♪ if you smile through your fear and sorrow ♪ >> larry: how were you able to perform so well at that funeral service? at the memorial service. i mean, you were incredible that day. where did you get that fr

among our guests tomorrow, we will focus on the confirmation hearings for elena kagan. edward lee will be joining us. he is the director of the mexican affairs office of the state department. that is tomorrow morning. thank you for being with us today. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ . . >> after the, reaction to the firing from senate armed services committee leaders, john mccain and carl levin. and later, defense secretary greagates and admiral mullen exn why they agree with the decision to replace general mcchrystal. >> of course, the lottery is prescribed by law. if demand are basis supply you have to do a lottery. >> i think this is the civil rights issue of today and it is not just about race. it is about class. >> tonight, the market -- the lottery producer madeleine sackler on the family that she hosted for the lottery, and the anti-charter schools and demand. >> mr. chairman, we are pleased to have you here of the g-20 leaders ar

and get a jump on next week's supreme court hearings elena kagan . here's an excerpt of our conversation with marcia coyle. >> i would say probably the nomination of robert bork was the major turning point in how we have hearings today for a number of reasons. he became quite controversial because of the position he took on how he interprets the constitution, which he felt went back to the original intent of the framers , and when he did that, he didn't find a right to privacy in the constitution. and this ignited a lot of debate and discussion outside of the judiciary hearing room. but with thomas, there was a charge of sexual harassment. and it was something that reflected on his character. but it became a very bitter sort of confirmation. >> there is nothing this committee, this body, or this country can do to give me my good name back, nothing. >> today, everything seems more highly partisan so i don't think you can just blame supreme court confirmations for that. we see it on just about every issue and so do the american people see it on just ab

at 8:30 eastern, more about the supreme court confirmation hearings of elena kagan. and we will discuss

then under kagan watch, a conservative website. obama may use executive privilege to withhold kagan documents. a council to obama implied obama could use executive privilege to hide memos elena kagan road. president obama does not intend to assert executive privilege -- bauer writes. present -- ex-president clinton also has an interest and what do you think about drilling in the gulf? caller: there are two things -- i don't know if the media just does not know, but the golf and the bermuda triangle probably have oil reserve -- it's incredible, beyond anything venezuela has. and they are doing it completely right. they have centralized pipelines, for one thing. we should have huge taxes on gas, for one thing, and a government -- it is natural resources. the entire gulf -- all the countries, everybody could have simple pipe lines that go into these vast pools. the bermuda triangle -- hello? host: we are listening. caller: the bermuda triangle, for one, it is so full of methane. it used to be solid seaweed when columbus came over. tha