justice kagan: ms. kruger, if i could just clarify for a second there, because you're now sounding as though you want to draw a sharp line between retaliation claims and substantive discrimination claims, and i didn't get that from your brief. so, is that, in fact, what you're saying? kruger: i think that there is an important distinction to be made between the government's general interest in eradicating discrimination from the workplace and the government's interest in ensuring that individuals are not chilled from coming to civil authorities with reports about civil wrongs. but if i could continue, i think that the -- justice kagan: so, are you willing to accept the ministerial exception for substantive discrimination claims, just not for retaliation claims? kruger: i don't think that those are the only two sets of inquiries that are important in the balancing. and if i could continue, i think the government -- chief justice roberts: i'm sorry. that was a yes -- i think that question can be answered

get his paperwork for all right so we have you're saying that that's a conflict what about justice kagan the fact that you practically wrote and she definitely worked for an administration and helped craft obamacare yet she's going to be deciding cases on oh you know if she's going to do what is it also is she we also don't know thomas all europe and the justice department has already recused herself from one case that she has refused or for a cell from obamacare and we know she won with that had cases that come before the supreme court happening here was he knows the future ok but you would dissipate the chill withdraw from that case i would expect that she probably will and that and thomas should and i hope he will because you know which is very well yeah there's no way she will it's too important to her former boss that put her on the court i mean we all know that kagan is tom her purpose on the court is to be an advocate for the obama administration was and that's why it wasn't only in a kagan against whom this you know who was asked to be investigated by the justice moore by thirty

way she will is too important to her former boss that put her on the court i mean we all know that kagan is tom her purpose on the court is to be an advocate for the obama administration was and it's why it wasn't only in a kagan against whom this you know who was asked to be investigated by the justices are by thirty members of congress it was clarence thomas and all the kings and democrats are just democrats and his wife has spent over has taken over one hundred fifty thousand dollars to lobby specifically against obamacare right isn't there a problem here that this is not new for the thomases by the way. ginni thomas has been part of every major right wing interest going back a couple decades and she's deeply involved in the efforts behind the tea party so we know that we know there's going to be capital we know that we know that she's a partisan what we didn't know was what she was being paid and to conceal something like that i mean part of the reason these laws even exist is to expose that type of potential conflict of interest but look at his anybody really believe that clarence t

justice elena kagan: justice scalia is right. i am assuming that a letter disposing of a ruling in a capital case issued after 18 months when nobody knew that that letter was coming, that that's an important letter for a death row person to get. so justice scalia is right to that effect. so you get this, and you say, well, you would have. but that's the question we have to ask about the clerk as well. the clerk -- the question for the clerk is, if he had really wanted the person to get notice, what would he have done? mr. neiman jr.: no, your honor, i disagree. the -- as far back as mullane, this court has said that at the end of the day actual notice to a party, particularly within the jurisdiction, is the finish line for due process purposes. mullane expressly-- justice samuel alito: you concede from these questions that the arguments that you are making in this capital case, which is sui generis, are pushing the court to consider rules that would have far- reaching effect, such as a rule that places upon a clerk of the court a

so, that's an example of how the sword beginning to work together, a little bit better. >> bob kagan, is this the new way forward, is this a new doctrine? one size fits all? no boots on the ground. >> there is no one size fits all. every situation is different. i would be surprised if this particular method worked elsewhere. i'm afraid that the administration's move from leading from behind to reverse, they're just pulling back and hoping they can still provide leadership in the world. i'm very dubious. >> what the secretary talks about is different than that old model. leading from behind is an unfortunate phrase. we're like leading from the front, charging in there. a, we have budget problems. b, there is a new world going on there, with social media, we're seeing it in the arab spring. we can't dictate to any country what they want. we can't tell other countries what your national interest is. >> christiane, i want to make one quick point about what biden said, and that is, when you look at war and you look at the changing face of war, you look at drones and air strikes it is sort

with him in the studio is bob kagan of the brookings institute, rick stengel traveling with secretary clinton all week and abc's foreign affairs correspondent martha raddatz who is with the secretary in libya. let me you ask you quickly about iraq. their putting the best face on what they have to do, which is to come out. the military wanted to keep more people. >> the senior military leaders really wanted to keep, at the very least, 3,000 to 5,000 u.s. military members in to help train. as you mentioned in the beginning, logistical problems, air force, they wanted some presence on the ground. there are a lot of diplomats on the ground as well. to help protect those diplomats as well. >> and, bob, how is this playing in the region, this quite sudden removal? i know the agreement was to pull them out, but there was meant to be a residual force. how is this playing out in the region? >> everybody knows that the administration was trying very hard to keep troops in. why? they're worried about stability in iraq, and they're worried about iranian influence. that's how this is going to be v

the same thing with elena kagan. she said at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case or what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent line, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arizona about the immigration law. you also have a very

with him in the studio is bob kagan, martha raddatz. let me you ask you quickly about iraq, they're putting the best face on what they have to do, to come out the military wanted to keep more people >>. >> the senior military leaders really wanted to keep, at the very least, 3,000 to 5,000 u.s. military to help train, as you mentioned in the beginning, with lidgist call problems, they wanted some presence on the ground. there are a lot of diplomats on the ground as well. to help protect those diplomats. >> bob, how is this playing in the region, this quite sudden removal? i know the agreement was to pull them out, how is this playing out in the region? >> everybody knows that the administration was trying to keep troops in, why, they're worried about stability in iraq and they're worried about iranian influence. that's whhow this is going to b viewed in the region. unfortunately it's going to be noticed very shortly after we uncovered an iranian plot to commit a terrorist act on american soil, very soon thereafter, we announced our with

the same thing with elena kagan. she said at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case or what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent line, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arizona about the immigration law. you also have a very

the same thing with elena kagan.aid at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case or what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent line, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arizona about the immigration law. you also have a very simila

. >> stephen: and kagan works for the obama administration. >> correct. some say she should recuse herself. >> stephen: she has o billion-- obama on her. you can't wash that off as far as conservatives are concerned. >> that's true. >> stephen: you wrote a great book on the supreme court called the nine. are you -- >> it was fantastic. i enjoyed it i didn't get around to reading 1 through 8 yet. do you have another one coming. >> i do, next fall. >> stephen: sequel. what would you like to have happen on the supreme court, you know, to make your book exciting, tiger attack. >> i would like a 5-4 decisiothat sets the country on fire one way or the other. >> well, i certainly hope the country burns to the ground so you can sell some books. >> absolutely. >> stephen: jeff erie toobin, thank you sop much. cnn senior legal analyst jeffery toobin. we'll be right back. thank you so much. (cheers and applause) >> stephen: welcome back, everybody. nation, thank you so much. folks, there is danger around every corner but don't forget the corner itself. they can be s

so should justices kagan and thomas get benched because of their connection to the case?for the final field goal, this football coach called on a girl to settle the score. the homecoming queen who nailed the game winning kick. now it's time to meet her. road trip buddy. let's put some music on. [ woman ] welcome to learning spanish in the car. you've got to be kidding me. yeah, this is good. vamanos. vamanos. vamanos. gracias. gracias. gracias. ♪ trece horas en el carro sin parar y no traes musica. mira entra y comprame unas papitas. [ male announcer ] get up to 795 miles per tank in the all-new volkswagen passat tdi clean diesel. ♪ that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm [ male announcer ] for half the calories -- plus veggie nutrition. could've had a v8. and who ordered the yummy cereal? yummy. [ woman ] lower cholesterol. [ man 2 ] yummy. i got that wrong didn't i? [ male announcer ] want great taste and whole gin oats that can help lower cholesterol? honey nut cheerios. [ cellphone rings ] cut! [ monica ] i have a small part in a big movie. i thought we'd be on locati

bruce kagan you know coordinator of the global network against weapons and nuclear power in space thanks for joining us on the line tonight from washington d.c. . so just a little bit after a twenty eight minutes past eleven o'clock at night here in moscow looking ahead what we've got coming up the rest of this for you then coming up shortly artie's people of his guest discuss who stands to benefit most from the fallout of that u.s. around assassination scandal making all the headlines to cross-talk on every shortly in about three or four minutes after i've updated the headlines my name is kevin o. and thank you for being with international. he. will. bring you the latest in science technology from the. we've got the future covered. thank you for joining us. these are our top stories for you enough is enough hundreds of thousands of desperately spill onto the streets venting their anger over a new role for tough austerity measures clashes have broken out between police and protesters who say they're fed up with attempts to stop the country's financial freefall. strain stand still serves

as for justice kagan right now there are no motions on the table by either side to recues either justice. these are our supreme court justices. so ultimately they are going to make the right decision as to whether they should hear this case or not. i have full confidence in our united states supreme court. >> wouldn't you be shocked? i know i would be shocked -- let me put it that way. i would be shocked if the court didn't follow it's usual 5-4 right majority over left minority and declared the law unconstitutional. i think it would be almost irresponsible not to handicap it that way unless you see something different. >> again as i told new the 11th circuit we had a judge appointed by president clinton who ruled in our favor. we firmly believe this is unconstitutional. you know geraldo, 5-4 is a win for the people of america. i don't want to guess on numbers. i do feel confident that this is unprecedented. congress wasn't done anything like this in over two years. i feel confident we will prevail in the supreme court. >> tenth amendment over the commerce clause. >> that's right. if the

one step further, a elena kagan at that time solicitor general arguing the case and i am sure this is not an answer she thought of five spurred the moment the one justice said it is broad enough to commit -- with the humanitarian law project, a could data cover a lawyer filing a brief? >> host: it was one of the facts in the case itself. >> she said yes. i think that is too broad park ave does have the power to a think barack obama will prosecute lawyers? no. but. >> and just to be fair, i do agree the statute is historic the bride and the supreme court recognizes that it is as broad as it has seen but to be fair if there are unconstitutional applications that discount the fact that it does harm by its mere existence about a but the power is there and the statute of limitations allow people to be prosecuted by future the administration for things they're doing now. plus president obamacare colder to determine the agencies and those below them. >> host: they are responsible for their own actions and the further compelling part is how the very thinly veiled disappointment that you portr

i have talked about with others, justice roberts, elena kagan. it is the same service sensation than the first argument. it is very memorable. >> what happened to the case you>> i lost. no, i lost. it is not an earthshaking case. justification. >> what has it been like for you since you left? and why did you write the book? >> it is a story that group by itself. when i left the court, i was invited to attend a fairly large amount of informal sessions. like the rotary. there are groups in arlington and elsewhere. i was repeatedly asked tell us differ? it just stuck. people seem to be interested in possible differences of the different chiefs. then i looked back further. and looked back, and i had some contact. it is not as intensive. the idea came to me that there may be a fair amount of interest in talking about the chiefs. i remember talking to john roberts about the same time. i thought the public did not have a full understanding of all the work. there are a fair number of additional responsibilities that might be of interest. i thought it wou

there was some anxiety as to whether elena kagan would be confined to that or not. when michelle obama chose to wear bare legs and bear arms, we are still having anxiety about that. and it is such anxiety about the appearance, and it seems to me that it all boiled down to the anita hill question, which was not really about did i wear the right thing, but ultimately, what is credibility look like? what do we have to wear, what we have to do to be believed? in that spirit, i wanted to turn to who anita hill is despite the choice of what to wear. you can certainly read her bio in the materials. she graduated from the university of oklahoma and yale law school in 1980 and was put into the spotlight in 1991 and all the rest of history. but there is a back history that is worth telling, or at least for grounding, because it did not take clarence thomas to make her a pioneer or heroin. long before she was a pioneer and a heroine. she began teaching in 1983. there were virtually no women or women of color teaching anywhere. she and i both teach contracts and commercial law.

the same thing with elena kagan. she said at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case o what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent le, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arina about the immigration law. you also have a very simil

his other pick, robert kagan.e founded the critical group that rallied neo conservatives to support the invasion of iraq, another great pick. these are the people now advising romney. so if you think launching two wars and illegally spying on americans is a great idea, then willard is your candidate. joining me now, joan walsh, editor at large for salon.com. joan, thanks for being here tonight. >> thank you. >> tonight, are willard romney and other republicans completely tone deaf to the realities of what we've been going through in the last ten years? i mean, can we say tonight they're just tone deaf? >> i would say so. it's like he's putting the old bands back together, bringing them all back without any regard for the foreign policy disaster they got us into. i think all this team needs right now is a running mate liz cheney. i think she would be an excellent pick for mr. romney. then they would really have the full bush/cheney effect. it's ridiculous. >> i'm laughing to keep from crying. >> it could happen. >>

some groups have called on justices kagan and thomas to recuse themselves from the healthcare issue becausef personal connections, but no indication tonight either is considering doing so. >> acquisition live, thank you. >>> -- matt ackland live, thank you. >>> sunday means two things, football and politics and for some others it means a lot more, but today the sunday talk shows tackled the republican candidates, the president's policies and one very rich manslaughter back off my bank account. fox 5's -- man says back off my bank account. fox 5's melanie alnwick has the roundup. >> reporter: her main cain made a few sunday appear -- herman cain made a few sunday appearances telling sunday morning chris wallace the public may hire a black man. >> they're now looking at this guy herman cain is putting real solutions on the table. >> reporter: could he and the other republican candidates have some competition from new jersey's chris christie? here's what virginia governor bob mcdonnell had to say on meet the press. >> christie is a unique successful governor with a positive outlook and i think

i talked about this with john ruth bader ginsburg and elena kagan. it is the same service sensation than the first argument. it is very memorable. >> what happened to the case you are arguing? did you win? >> i lost. it is not an earthshaking case. they did decide question of statutory construction under the justification defense. >> you served 34 years on the court. what has it been like for you since you left, and why did you write the books? >> it is a story that group by -- that grew by itself. when i left the court, i was invited to attend a fairly large amount of informal sessions. where i talked to smaller groups like the rotary. there are groups in arlington and elsewhere. i was repeatedly asked tell us, you served with three chief justices. how they were alike and how they differ? people seem to be interested in possible differences of the different chiefs. then i looked back further. i thought i had some contacts with five. the idea came to me that there may be a fair amount of interest in talking about the chiefs. in fact, andi remember ta

justice kagan. they won't vote that way. the demonstrations are very important because they give you the potential to mobilize people. but people need to take the next step and they have to, one, let the people now in office know what they think, and two, vote for the people who do that. in the senate, there was just a very partisan vote to put a surtax on income above $1 million. i'd like to go even lower. that would have been a progressive step. unfortunately it was filibustered because the republicans voted unanimously against it and all but a couple of democrats voted for it. that wasn't enough. yes, i hope there will be pressure to do even more, but i, again, want to be honest, simply being in a public place and voicing your opinion in and of itself doesn't do anything politically. it is the prerequisite, i hope, for people getting together and voting and engaging things. and i understand some of the people on occupy wall street are kind of critical of that. they think that's conventional politics. well, you know, the m

. >> to be fair to the other side, republicans also want to investigate justice elaine a kagan who servesthe general for the obama administration when the healthcare law was created. are they right. >> she has recused herself in instances where she was involved. should she do it? absolutely. i'm not doing this as a political issue at all. i'm doing it because i think we love justice, but more than that, we live, all of us, by what the supreme court decides. i want to make sure it's -- >> doesn't justice thomas' wife have a right to independently support. >> yes. >> political groups of her own volition? >> i want to tell you the way i feel about that. i can tell you approximate that from my own family. there will be issues before the supreme court of the united states when she was one of nine spouses or nine persons there associated with that court. no, i do not believe they should be involved publicly in trying to sway one way or another the public's opinion that something should be left for her husband or a wife to adjudicate. i believe that very sincerely. >> you believe that she should

at the oral argument, elena kagan the solicitor general in the case, one of the justices said to her it is broad enough to cover the humanitarian law project to try to teach terrorists not to be terrorists could that ever cover a -- >> host: one of the facts in the case itself in one of the earlier iterations. >> guest: it was. she said yes it would cover lawyers. i think that is too abroad. the government has the power over everybody. i think that barack obama is going to prosecute lawyers or eric holder, malae don't but this has a tremendous chile and -- >> host: one thing just to be fair i do agree that the statute is very broad and the supreme court recognizes this and says it's about as broad a statute as it has seen nevertheless as unconstitutional on its face. to be fair if there are unconstitutional applications come in be used in order to punish unconstitutional conduct the unconstitutional the application is always the defense -- >> guest: it didn't work so well for samuel hussain he denied the claim and dismissed the prosecution plus i think the discount the fact the statu

[laughter] >> could you assume for me that is it -- >> justice kagan.[laughter] >> i feel like i've missed something. [laughter] mr. dellinger, could you assume for me that there is a ministerial exception that's founded in the religion clauses and tell me who count as a minister and why this commissioned minister does not count as a minister. >> i believe that there is a exemption grounded in the religion clauses. it means that religious organizations will win, prevail in many cases in which a comparable civil organization would not prevail. i don't think that it makes sense to approach it in a categorical way of asking -- >> i'm just asking you to assume with me for a moment that there is a categorical exception and to tell me who you think counts as a minister and why the woman in this case does not. >> well, in our view if that was the test, then we would say that the court of appeals was correct in holding that she was not a minister, and the principle reason is she carries out such important success lahr functions in addition -- secular functions

there already have been requests for recuseals by justice thomas and kagan. no indication either one of them is considering it, gregg. gregg: given lower courts are split on the subject, seems inevitable they will have to sort it out one way or the other. shannon bream at u.s. supreme court. thanks very much. martha: thousands of miles away in los angeles emergency room doctors back on the stand today in the manslaughter trial of michael jackson. dr. conrad murray, aexcused of gross negligence in the king of pop's death. adam housley live at los angeles superior court. adam, as they get ready for things to role today, what do we connect? >> reporter: dr. rochelle cooper will be back on the stand today. she was the doctor on duty and got everybody ready when michael jackson arrived at ucla medical center back on the day he died. she testified on friday. the prosecution continues to lay out their dramatic case, she testified dr. conrad murray never told her about any drugs. she asked him several times what he might be taking or what michael jackson might be tak

think about the vote for elena kagan, who was supreme unqualified for the job. she had many more negative votes because the division was on party lines. sunday, we will get back to the way -- some day, we will get back to the way it was. but it will take people on both sides of the aisle, who care to make government work, to the fact that change. i should say, by the way, the white house people were quite worried about my aclu and affiliation, in what they called murder boards, preparation for the hearing. people in the white house staff would take the part of various senators and ask me questions. the question would be run this way. you were on the aclu board in the year 1976. in that year, a past -- they passed that resolution. did you vote for it? i said, stop. i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. a neighbor grudgingly gave up. -- they begrudgingly gave up. and there was not a single question from republican or democrat, about the work that i had done with the aclu. that would not happen today. >> if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the

. >> elena kagan and thomas have recaused themselves from health care reform debate citing personal conflict. reporting live stacy cohen back to you. >>> all right thank you. >>> anti wall street protests, continue in new york city's financial district. several hundred of these occupy wall street demonstrators have been there several weeks they are protesting the concentration of wealth in this nation. 700 protestors were arrested, blocking a lane of the brooklyn bridge. geralda riviera spoke to them. >> do you think something can come of this? >> something has come of this we have been here two weeks, a lot of people are not leaving. we have to go to work a couple days, before we come back but corralling us on the brooklyn bridge and jailing us is not going to happen >> they eat donated fo their laptops running with a portable generator and have a makeshift hospital they are growing in numbers, getting more organized and showing no signs of quitting. >>> republican presidential candidate, herman cane criticizing rick perry saying he should have removed a racially charged name from a rock, p

knocconservatives are urging js moments of clarence issues elena kagan to reduce herself because theytoo involved with the bill on the inside of the administration when she was president obama's solicitor general. liberals are trying to get justice clarence thomas to reduce himself from healthcare arguments because they say his wife was paid to fight against it. contentious arguments already. today that was set aside for a red mass in washington, d.c. they have the service every single year the day before the supreme court starts. the justices were there. the idea was to pray for the justices to have guidance as they navigate what might become one of their most important terms in years. >> getting ready for tomorrow. >> um-h'm. s that, peter. 26 states are hoping the supreme court will see their side of the healthcare case and rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. leading that fight is general greg abbott. thank you for your time today. >> good afternoon, shannon. >> shannon: there are several appeals throughout. the one that you are are involved with, the 26 states ar

>> i want to start with justice cay can began's -- kagan's questions. it is true that contact's visits in bell are different than a person coming in that there might be a greater opportunity for planning. but as one of the justices pointed out, this was less of an opportunity to get contraband. the inmate was wearing a one-piece zip-up jumper, and he seemed watched the entire time. the contraband situation in this case, at intake, the person does have an opportunity even if they are not self-reporting knowing that they're going to be arrested. protesters, for example, who decide deliberately to get arrested, they might be stopped by the police, they might have a gum or contraband in their car and think, hey, i'm going to put that on my perp, i just need to get it somewhere and then potentially they have the contraband with them. also the process of going from the arrest, point of arrest to the general jail population is not a quick one. the person typically goes, for example, to a metropolitan police department. that's what happens here. and the person

i want to start with justice kagan's question. it is true that contact visits in bell are different from a person coming into the jail for the first time in that there might be a greater opportunities for planning. but as one of the justices pointed out, there was less opportunity to actually get contraband. the person coming in was going to be searched. the inmate was wearing a one-piece zip-up jumper and he's being watched the entire time. the contraband situation in this case at intake, the person does have an opportunity, even if they are not self-reporting, knowing that they're going to be arrested, protesters, for example, who decide deliberately to get arrested, they might be stopped by the police. they see the squad car behind them. they might have a gun or contraband in their car and think i'm going to put that on my person. i just need to get it somewhere that's not going to be found during a pat-down search, then potentially they have the contraband with them. also the process of going from the arrest -- points of arres

think of the vote for elena kagan.iveany more votes because they were voting along party lines. it will take people on both sides of the aisle with a sense to really care to make government work. i should say, by the way, that the white house people were quite worried about my aclu affiliation and what they called the preparation for "murder boards." people in the white house staff would play the part of different senators and the questions would be around this way. "you were in the aclu board in the year 1976. in that year, they passed these resolutions. did you vote for them?" i said , "stop." i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. grudgingly, they gave up and there was not a single question asked by any center -- senator about the work that i had done with the aclu. that would not happen today. >> gone with the wind. if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the bench assuming that all of your colleagues would magically agree, what would that they be? >> it is hard to pick just one. [laughter] i would

think of the vote for elena kagan who superbly qualified for the child and she had many more negative vote because the division was on party lines. sunday, we will get back to the way it once was, but it will take people on both sides of the aisle was sent to really care of making government work to affect that change. i should say privately that the white house people were quite worried about my aclu affiliation and what they call murder boards, preparation for the hearing. people in the white house staff would take the part of various senators and ask a question and the questions it be, run this way. you run the aclu board in the year 1976. and in that year, the past that resolution. did you vote for it? i said stop because i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. and so, they grudgingly gave up. and there was not a single question asked by any senator, republican or democrat about the work i attended the aclu. that would not happen to me. >> if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the bench and assuming all of your colleagues would magically agree, what would that cou

tmal walano rusece clhimclf b tecse w han wous im b virginia wks fhem orgn ine w f herid andhe oele kaganterhe heath acargent le kan unless shean xp h tow hh ca vorglvened s w unsselng how prvoidt oba' legal tng defend i wprle sa' weg t t solir feral. le it an ectn t y ali l. pect aitnot thins onve a si ngle t ing ct doothisn sile tf theyng d cider dot dede thear e ce that is tyecidf ey hea wde bdoede tkeard a t c tt tid deear w ve bey a c loseey miosce, y gu. >> cte tnk vy much misc y itgu .remark l sn'tit vy mu guy y've git this resel sn th hith rease i thuye'v g tmidds thh reasehiha hea tedd eltionseason?hiha ea >> elonght, it' onheas?et. >> aot peoplghe iing coulbe aetn-win i fa iott'eoe ul a vo h iow innd own onstutna it' anlbaos off sack o rst it'f the aupmeba cot f ac sta os approva i t ahendme say co ta a fppindva i a slel. the r ublins c ld f sday 'sle l.wiwin i he ylipns cld s th . >> a spewiinwi of thwin-win, or apein o f inni who is going tn-ben, the g ni replicaoi candate? tbe big esti. o iseoing go be in rep tca nde? g tiunni is ng be and iontiing thi ror mil cti es tniowi n

i want to start with justice kagan's question.is true that visits in bell are different from a person coming into the jail for the first time and there's a greater opportunity for planning, but as one of the justices pointed out, there was less than opportunity to actually get contraband, the person coming in was going to be searched, the inmate was wearing a one piece zip up jumper and he was watched the entire time. the contraband situation in this case at intake, the person does have an opportunity even if they were not self-reporting, knowing they will be arrested, protesters, for example, who decided to get arrested, stopped by police, see the car, might have a gun in their car and i think i'll put it on my person, put it somewhere not found in a pat down search, and then they have the contraband. going from the point of arrest to the general jail population is not a quick one of the the person goes to a metropolitan police department, that's what happens here and the person mixes there in a holding cell with other offenders.

. >> as a tactical question justice kagan and sotomayor that given the opportunity they would overturnis it still in flux as of constitutional law is but something that would be in during or go buy the wayside? >> it is hard, to say what would happen in the short-term i don't think it would be happen you never know which judicial appointments heller was the five/four decision a subsequent in 2010 saying the second amendment applied equally too legal -- local and state governments that was also five/four suni type of judicial appointment may change that. i don't think the democrats have a lot to gain by pushing for nominees cetera hostile to bear arms i think supporters are very unlikely to support nominees that could change the vote from five/four and i am hopeful in the long run this is the kind of decision that is seen that helps american politics move forward and accepted by both sides of the issue. >> earlier today there is a panel on an arco drug wars and talking about the weapons being used originate here in the united states. are there ways we can control but without infringing

and i think the key inquiry is what justice kagan recognized, which is you look to what a person who is actually desirous of providing notice would do. in this situation, the clerk got two notices back, "left firm." it opened it up. it would have seen an order in a capital case, and it did nothing. i don't think anyone who actually desired to provide notice of an inmate with his life on the line would do nothing, reasonably, in that situation. mr. maples is not asking to be released from prison. he's asking for an opportunity to present a serious constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to a federal habeas court on the merits. if the claims are as meritless as they suggest, that clearly will have little burden on it. but simply allowing those claims to be adjudicated on the merits in federal court will go a long way to preserve the legitimacy of the system of criminal justice in a case in which a man's life is at stake. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. counsel. the case is submitted. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by n

think of the vote for elena kagan who superbly qualified for the child and she had many more negative vote because the division was on party lines. sunday, we will get back to the way it once was, but it will take people on both sides of the aisle was sent to really care of making government work to affect that change. i should say privately that the white house people were quite worried about my aclu affiliation and what they call murder boards, preparation for the hearing. people in the white house staff would take the part of various senators and ask a question and the questions it be, run this way. you run the aclu board in the year 1976. and in that year, the past that resolution. did you vote for it? i said stop because i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. and so, they grudgingly gave up. and there was not a single question asked by any senator, republican or democrat about the work i attended the aclu. that would not happen to me. >> if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the bench and assuming all of your colleagues would magically agree, what would that cou