bush set out to do just that, kagan cheered him on. then in 2006 called for a surge in american troop levels to prevent iraq's collapse. now robert kagan is stirring controversy again with this lengthy article in the new republic. superpowers don't get to retire. wh he calls for america to return to muscular global activism. his article brought a sharper post from another scholared historian who seized the role differently. they have seen the horrors too closely to advocate more of the same policies that failed in vietnam and iraq. a graduate from west point with 23 years in the military including time in vietnam. he teaches history at boston university and writes best selling books and articles and essays and journals both liberal and conservative. like this critique of kagan titled "the duplicity of the idea logs." welcome back. what do you mean by that? >> kagan's essay, which does deserve to be read because of his stature in washington, gives us a falsified sanitized and in some respects account of recent american history. >> how s

some cases it will be justice kagan. that's their job. they should be probing for weaknesses and challenging the position of the united states in particular to try to work through what the implications of agreeing to the united states's view would be. that's what they do. that's their job. this is a really smart group of jurists, the justices who sit on the court. they are incredibly well prepared. so it makes it a great challenge to argue but it also makes an incredibly rewarding experience because you do feel like win or lose, you feel like they understand what's at stake in the case. they understand what the issues are. the case is going to be decided on the basis of the legal issues that are really there and at the heart of the case. >> all right so i'm done. good. standing between you and the bar. i realize. [ applause ] the white house has requested $3.7 billion aid in border security. on our next washington journal, we will talk about arizona republican congressman david swagert about border security challenges. we'll also talk wit

especially because justice kagan's write right. you can't see a thing up here. so we're just going to have to stumble through it. but chief judge wood and members of the seventh circuit and julie and members of the association, i'm really honored to be here with you. it's a special treat for me to be in chicago. i spent more than 20 years with jenner and block and gotten to see a number of great old friends here tonight on which i'm very grateful for and this is a city i deeply love and even though i'm only here a day it's happy day for me to be here. what i'm going to do tonight is just talk for a few minutes about my job and then what i'd like to do is see if he could have something approaching a conversation and we can do questions and answers i hope for a good chunk of the time we have this evening. my experience is that tends to be more interesting and fun for you and me both. so the job of the solicitor general is to represent the united states and that's really an awesome thing. we file a brief and we file it, i file it on behalf of the united states. i s

justice kagan talked about your integrity. how dok and the hatred, we inspire those outside of our profession to follow in the best tradition of public service and bring those people up? the best and brightest on both sides of the aisle to do what we do is lawyers. >> i feel a particular obligation to do it now because i do think that -- and i have encountered this one i have talked to young people, law students in particular. to take reluctance chances. taking on pro bono or public .nterest they are concerned it would be held against them. and every now and then, you actually do see and we have recently seen a situation where it has come back to bite somebody. what i say to them is what i would say to you, that we can communicate to younger lawyers that that is exactly the wrong lesson to draw, even in this poisonous climate. maybe especially because of this poisonous climate. i am 100% morally certain that i here and be ap up having justice kagan delivering the introduction and i would not have this position had i not done t

and kagan geas on croon -- conclusion was written by roberts and joined by scalia. the dissenting justices who ruled in favor of the boy who had turned 21 after his mom who had immigrated from el salvador in 1998 had waited in line for eight years, but it was his misfortune, he turned 21, he had to go to the end of the line. they were also unlikely bedfellows. clarence thomas, samuel alito, stephen breyer and sonia sotomayor. that was not that atypical. in lots of difficult and divisive cases, you get these unusual alignments. there was a decision that the book deals with in some detail where kennedy led a 5-3 majority. kagan was recused. striking down most of arizona's show me your papers anti-immigrant law. scalia wrote a dissent that called the court's decision "mind-boggling." he went out of his way and outside the record of the case to attack obama for something unrelated to the case. his use of executive power to favor the immigrant children hone the a as dreamers -- known as dreamers. the washington post which usually selects the president or a senator or a c

over for powerful dissents, the most brilliant of which was probably that of elena kagan. maybe i'm biased. she was a student of mine but that's balanced by the fact that she was chief justice of a student of my. i see a few of my students in the room, so i've had a great time teaching, and they give me a kind of look into the approaches that various people are likely to take. one of the things about the case that distressed me most was that all nine justices, including the supposed liberals, when out of the way to say that the supreme court had been right 31 years ago when it upheld legislative prayers in march versus chambers. now, that's the beginning of difficulty for the separation of church and state. so they were counting angels on the head of a pin when he should've been saying that the pin was rusty to begin with. anyway, the more i read from the book or give away its insights in advance, the less we'll be tempted to read it yourself. that let me just, this is advertised as a reading from the book, let me read a little bit, a couple of paragraphs from the chapter

the fourth liberal justice, elena kagan, was out of the case. they felt justice kagan probably was relieved in part to be out of this case because it was a very thorny issue. a difficult issue. it inspired passions among the justices. it will be in the book. >> i will read the book. there was one sentence in her dissent that particularly caught my attention. after going on for eight or 10 pages about the benefits of affirmative action and the great decrease in diversity that has been the result of anti-affirmative action legislation in place of like california, she has a sentence and says, to be clear, i don't mean to be clear that the virtues of adopting race sensitive admissions should inform the legal opinion before the court today. that's the only time i can think of somebody saying seven like that. does anybody remember another situation like that? do you think there's anything inappropriate about that? >> the union case, two days ago, has a 10 page long -- it ends with, never mind. >> i think what was so interesting about the dissent by th

>> well, first, justice kagan, let me take a little bit of an issue with your premise and let me tryo responsive to your question anyways after i do that. how i'd like to take issue with your premise is that when congress first passed the statute rfra, it talked about free exercise as defined in the court's cases. and then at the time that it passed rluipa, which is a later statute, it actually confronted some lower court cases that had limited rfra and tried to impose a centrality requirement. and congress didn't want that. it didn't want to take all the baggage of the pre-smith free exercise cases. so it actually amended the statute to broaden it so it now protects any exercise of religion. so i would take issue with your premise that rfra simply picks up everything that ever happened pre-smith. >> well, there there's another respect in which this, even as originally enacted, does not track the preemployment division v. smith law. that is to say, the compelling state interest test in the prior cases was never accompanied by a least restrictive alternative requirement. that was an i

liberalth bit -- justice, elena kagan, was out of the case. they felt justice kagan probably was relieved in part to be out of this case because it was a very thorny issue. a difficult issue. among thed passions justices. it will be in the book. >> i will read the book. there was one sentence in her dissent that particularly caught my attention. for eight or 10 pages about the benefits of affirmative action and the great decrease in diversity that has been the result of anti-affirmative action legislation in place of like california, she has a sentence and says, to be clear, i don't mean to be clear that the re-sensitiveopting sensitive -- that's the only time i can think of somebody saying seven like that. does anybody remember another situation like that? do you think there's anything inappropriate about that? >> the union case, two days ago, it ends page long -- with, never mind. [laughter] >> i think what was so interesting about the dissent by the societal mayor -- justice sotomayor was it was very personal and directly called out the chi

ginsburg, breyer, soto mayor and kagan joined as part 2-b-2. justice alito filed an opinion dissenting in part in which justice thomas joined. how do you even figure out -- >> and your editor is on the phone saying, should we call it 5-4 or 7-2? >> you look at what really matters going into it. the interesting thing about that epa case and the harris versus quinn one on monday, we all have certain expectations on how far the court might go. the union won, we knew what was at risk. the idea that maybe public employees weren't going to have to pay union dues. thought the court was going to challenge. they didn't end up reversing, but they ended up with a setback for public employees and unions anyway. as adam was saying, you have to figure out what vote really matters in the recess appointments, the unanimity, but also the 5-4 rationale. you have to work them both together. out to your bosses right away that they can put on the wire will make a difference to all the readers. you have to really give them one vote and keep revising. >> one thing th

participated in the dissent no kagan did not specifically explicitly said that she did not agree with the finding that they weren't corporations that explicitly and what she said was that she believes they are not are not capable of having a really right but she did say that she did believe that the directive from the federal government could pass muster under the religious freedom restoration act now and that a problem that now got some would you progressive set the so would you progressive and saying you can say i want to be although you may characterize what you know you are the resident i gave. the answer as made by is that i listen to you this to beings very well this this but the thing that's fascinating about this was the religious freedom restoration act was sponsored in the house by chuck schumer sponsored in the senate by ted kennedy and signed into law by bill clinton so why this is said there was on the republican side as well sure it was passed relatively it was almost unanimous and it was it was an attempt to make sure that the supreme court didn't didn't say. it was act

several years between the old neo cons and these liberal interventionists and in fact some like robert kagan some of the old neo cons now want to call themselves liberal interventionist so what you've seen is kind of a merger of those forces and president obama has been unwilling to challenge them and in fact as it has enabled them jim in washington as well it seems to me that from the one nine hundred eighty s. to the president to the present to the new can say conservative creed has become part and parcel of the genetic code of american foreign policy. i actually don't agree with that particularly i mean they're certainly a factor in american foreign policy but their influence has waxed and waned. over a period of four decades now well indeed for decades at least. i i mean i i fundamentally agree with what bob you know jeff just said but i would say i think . liberal internationalists and neo cons are fairly distinct traditions although they're kind of like first cousins we could talk about that later but they have a light in the past i mean in the one nine hundred ninety s. under bill cli

do i think he's stepping over a line because you had democrats kagan and pryor two red state democrats, they are in tough races saying to the white house today please ease off because they know the american people aren't quite there. the president success unpersuasive -- if they are floating this trial balloon out there they have a lot of catching up to do to convince people it's the right thing. maybe they will succeed but right now they are way behind. >> 60 or 70,000 kids down there right now? if i was obama, i would tell the justice department to 2k3w0e69 or 70,000 businessmen who hired these people and throw them in jail. >> your going to say -- >> yes, break the law go to jail. i agree. >> they should go to jail. >> let's move on. >> you can understand why people are confused. within the last three weeks you said you thought the children should be sent back. then all of a sudden when the politics got crazy all the democrats start saying no we can't send them back. i admire the lock step decision-making but you can understand why the american people are confused. >> if i had said

. >> elena kagan, one justice who is very liberal has ruled and wrote another opinion that she agreesthe idea that you cannot reinterpret a statute and you have to read the language of the statute. >> how soon will they rule? because i have to tell you that this affects one sixth of our economy. and tens of millions of people's lives. >> just. >> but right now the subsidies are not going away. and people are not going to lose their subsidies right now. lou: i cannot tell you how many advocates for amnesty and open burgers i have heard. open borders. section 1825, isn't it time artisan and? barcode to crime. >> it is a crime and it always has been. >> bush and obama wouldn't prosecute. >> and prosecuted and reentered after deportation in many cases, someone comes in illegally and they come back again after deportation, there's criminal charges but no one is getting punished. >> why shouldn't you break the law? and people wonder why we are faced with this crisis center southern borders. it's good to see you. i think the word is resplendent. thank you folks. not to the quotation of the e

justice kagan and breyer distanced themselves from that. they made it clear it was way too far for them to go. there's nothing surprising about the proposition. haveofit corporations religious liberty rights of so do for-profit corporations. hobby lobby and conestoga would have religious objections and their rights have been indicated. >> samuel alito wrote the majority opinion -- the court tried to limit its ruling to publicly held corporations, they actually did not limit the overall opinion that for-profit privately owned theseations can exercise rights. they said it is unlikely or improbable that publicly traded companies will be able to bring these claims. theydo not rule out that had these free enterprise interest in the first place. with respect to covertly held operations, it does not mean small. some of the largest companies that are privately held employee hundreds of thousands of employees in this country. going tothat this is be some very small mom and pop corporation just is not a reflection of reality. on the point about wheth

. >> kagan, one of the supreme court justices, liberal, wrote in other opinions that she agrees with idea that you can't reinterpret a statute. it's plain, you have to read the language of a statute and say, okay -- >> how soon will they rule -- i'll tell you, this affects one-sixth of our economy. >> yes, but -- >> affects tens of millions of people's lives. they're going to take their time, aren't they? >> these aren't going away. people aren't going to lose their subsidies right now. >> thank goodness. illegal immigration, i can't tell you how many times i've heard activists for amnesty and open borders saying, just crossing our border isn't a crime. well, i point to the title 8 u.s. code, section 1325, is it a crime or isn't it? that code says it's a crime. >> so it is a crime. >> always has been. >> bush and obama wouldn't prosecute what is a crime. >> i prosecuted myself many, many cases. somebody comes in here illegally, they come back again after deportation. i've prosecuted -- that's a criminal charge and they're deported again. >> but no one's getting punished for it. so it

ruth bader ginsburg, elena kagan, sotomayor and stephan briar voted to uphold the mandate. that's hard to believe because religious freedom is the mall mark of the constitution. if you sincerely believe that abortion is morally wrong you have the the ability to opt out. these four justices would deny you that right. absolutely contradicting the constitution. again, that's frightening. the other matter decided today by the supreme court is that the can't force people to join unions. intrusion. again it was a-4. liberal justices believing the feds should be able to force american workers into a union situation. talking points is concerned that if one more liberal supreme court justice is appointed, one more, freedom in america will be compromised forever. you know what? most americans do not understand that at all. on a practical basis, what are these four liberal judges thinking about? do they not standard that the obama administration has screwed up just about everything. do they not understand that the federal government in washington is not solving the nation's problems.

president obama was in the minority with his left tilt approach to kissing supreme court nominee elena kaganft-handedness. many famous movie kisses start with a right tilt. he plays it both ways in "notorious." babies in their last few weeks in the womb tend to turn their heads to the right. when it comes to rejecting affection, tim howard is still blocking, in this case blocking a fan's hug. it's no fun being rejected all puckered up with no place to go. jeannie moos, cnn, new york. >> all puckered up with no place to go. only jeanne could come up with that. thanks for watching, anderson's next. >>> good evening, i'm wolf blitzer. breaking news out of the middle east. air strikes over gaza right now. the operation now has a protective edge as more rockets fall, casualties rise. also tonight, what is one of the devices that scared officials so much they amped up airport security for flights coming into the united states? the answer, and the danger can fit in a pocket and is carried in billions of pockets worldwide. plus, he's charged with

president obama was in the minority when his left tilt approach to kissing supreme court nominee kaganandedness. many famous movie kisses start with a right tilt. carey grant plays it both ways in "notorious." the researcher thinks it's a womb thing. babies in their last few weeks in the womb tend to turn their heads to the right. when it comes to rejecting affection, u.s. goal keeper tim howard is still blocking, in this case blocking a fan's hug. it's no fun being rejected all puckered up with no place to go. jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> thank you for joining me today. i'm brianna keilar in for carol costello. "at this hour" starts now. >>> at this hour, recreational pot shops are opening their doors in washington state for the first time. we will speak with a store owner coming up. >>> plus, the warning to thousands of u.s. forces overseas. a powerful typhoon and a vulnerable coastline. the worst of it could still be to come. >>> then eight hours a day, 40 hours a week, that's a typical work week, right? that could be a thing of the past, or will it?

justice sotomayor, joined by her colleagues, justices ginsburg and caring kagan, given this blg dissentng these administrative restrictions to the mandate and adding unnecessary costs and layers of bureaucracy. she says, it is not the business of this court to ensnare itself in the government's ministerial handling of its affairs in the manner it does here. brianna, a sign that the fight over this employer mandate is far from over on this politically charged issue. >> there are certain companies and if they want to not provide access to this contraception, they have to provide a waiver. >> in fact, there's about 100 lawsuits in the pipeline right now contesting the contraception mandate, and that's a key point, in a lot of these lawsuits, these companies don't even want to sign the waiver form, they want their hands off of it. it's really interesting, when you look at the sharply worded dissents from ginsburg earlier in the week, sotomayor on this. >> 18 pages, right? >> it's real unusual, to put this in perspective, it's unusual for a justice to write a sharply worded dissent like this

this came from justice sotomayor and justices ginsburg and kagan. said, you know, we feel like there's been a switcheroo with the hobby lobby decision. those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us on our word. not so today after expressly relying on the availability of the religious nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates the religious freedom restoration act as applied to closely held for-profit corporations. the court now might retreat from that position. how does that complicate the conversation now? >> i think both of these cases -- i mean, with respect to wheaton, the court was doing something very straightforward, saying essentially wheaton doesn't have to fill out the form they're bringing suit about until the case has been heard. if you look at the end of her dissent, she says, this is just not the way we normally grant an injunction, but there's a huge amount of passion in the beginning. i think both of these cases show the court was saying religious freedom restoration a

>> the dissent, which was written by justice kagan said basically that 1977 decision settled the matter. there was no difference here. these were public employees and justification for the agency fees still existed and should have applied to these employees. >> i guess coming out of this, what a lot of folks are going to be looking to and what you just referred to is whether unions are going to see this as clipping their wings. >> i think they probably felt some amount of relief, but it's pretty clear that that 1977 decision is on life support. >> woodruff: okay. marcia coyle. two big decisions from the court today. this is the end of the term. >> it is. that's right. >> woodruff: all right, marcia. thank you very much. >> woodruff: general motors announced far more safety recalls today, this time an additional 8.4 million vehicles worldwide. the auto-maker said it is aware of seven crashes, eight injuries and three fatalities related to the recalled vehicles. g.m. said it knows of problems with the ignition's key's rotation. the models, which include cadillacs, chevy malibus and impala

. >> well, justice kagan, i think you could say the same thing about my bible hypothetical. but i do have one last thing to say about burdens. and i do think when you think about impacts on third parties, not all of these burdens are created equal. and that, too, i think is borne out in this court's cases. and the most relevant factor is, is there some alternative way for the government to ameliorate the burden. and i think about two types of, kind of accommodations, if you will. you get sort of title vii with a very narrow accommodation. and then you have conscience clauses that allow medical providers, including for-profit medical providers, not to provide abortions. now, each of those has a burden on third parties, but i would respectfully suggest they're different. in the case of the employee who's been subject to racial discrimination, even if they can get -- another job, that racial discrimination is a unique injury to them that you can't remedy unless you tell the employer, don't discriminate on the basis of race. now, in the context of the conscience clause, if a wom

. >> there was one written by justice scalia on the right and one written by justice kagan. given that, why are you so confident your legal basis is sound? ruled --legal justice they would anticipate the government would implement the law in line with congress's intent. said there was no evidence in the statute or the legislative extreme. of any intent by congress to support the claims made by the plaintiff. thisthe view of administration to maximize benefits across the country. millions of americans are benefiting from this. with theleanly in line intent of the united states government. >> for over 45 years he spent brings current of -- c-span brings current events directly to you and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house all at the service of credit industry. there c-span, created by cable industry 35 years ago. on facebook,e us and follow us on twitter. >> the united nations accurately council debated the ongoing israeli-palestinian conflict. security council debated the ongoing israeli-palestinian conflict. ben robert mcdonald ask questions at a senate h

justice breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in port and ginsberg, sotomayor and kagan joined and justice alito concurring in part and dissenting and justice thomas joined. so how do you even figure out -- >> your editor's on the phone moments saying 5-2 or 7-2? >> so what's the -- >> correct answer, 7-2. but -- but -- >> look at what really matters going into it and the interesting thing about the epa and recess opinion case and harris v. quinn on monday, we have certain expectations of how far the court might go, the union one, we knew what was at risk here. the idea that maybe public employees weren't going to have to pay union dues, the whole free rider question that we thought the court was going to challenge. they didn't end up reversing aed in intobood but a set back anyway and you have to figure out what to do and adam was saying that you kind of have to figure out what vote really matters here in the recess appointments, the unanimity of the setback to president obama and his nlrb appointments mattered and the 5-4 rationale is key and work them in both together

when i speak kagan not mean to be critical of all of the groups, but i think there is lot of energy at the state and local level where registering voters get folks out, talking to neighbors and doing a really, really impressive job. you see it weaving through these races. sometimes people say, oh, this big, national group this year. they don't understand that at the local level how it impacts our races. >> thank you. [inaudible question] >> you just described it. [inaudible question] >> because of redistricting people are pretty much in the district where they belong. so, you know, where the field in 2010 was over 100 races, 12, about 75. fifty is pushing it. so i think, you know, 50 would be pushing it. how many races are in play this cycle, it has made the field much smaller. >> that is exactly it. [inaudible question] >> you used the term community organizing. data mining, trying to get out low propensity voters. you know how sarah palin disparaged. are you emulating the obama 2012 ground game? >> i would say we are rebuilding the republican party for moderate political elections. y

simply note that in michigan versus bay mills indian community, that opinion was written by justice kagan, and she said she would not engage in a demand, in that case by the state of michigan, to apply some holistic interpretation to change what is express language in a statute. >> if i could just mention, the supreme court case you cited is in addition to the supreme court's decision that came out in june. that was a situation where the administration had written what they called a tailoring rule in the context of carbon emissions under the clean air act. and what the court decided in uarg was, you know, you don't have the authority to write regulations that are directly contrary to unambiguous statutory language. when congress acts without ambiguity in a statute, the job of the executive is to faithfully execute that law. and that means abiding by whatever numbers or deadlines congress provides in the statute. so congress in the clean air act, i think, mentioned 100 tons of emissions. and this carbon tailoring rule upped that to 100,000 tons. the supreme court said, you can't do that. b

justice kagan and justice breyer said that because hobby lobby would lose on the merits of the claim,t they wouldn't be able to show they were a stamp shall he -- that they were substantially burdened by the affordable care act, that they did not have to reach that issue. it is not that they disagreed, -- just didt not reach the issue. can call in now. the phone lines are -- you can also send us in a tweet. @cspanwj is our handle. you can also send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. ms. wydra, let me go back to you and point to what the court appointed in 1993, the freedom -- the religious freedom restoration act -- it was approved overwhelmingly by the congress. resident clinton signed in july. how do you eat at? -- president clinton signed it in july. how do you read it? person's refers to a exercise of religion. says when you act interpret the person -- ," youret the word "person include corporations except when the context would suggest a different, more narrow interpretation. when you look at what a person's exercise of religion has meant over our 200 protection -- 200 years of pr

simply note that in michigan versus bay mills indian community, that opinion was written by justice kagan, and she said she would not engage in a demand, in that case by the state of michigan, to apply some holistic interpretation to change what is express language in a statute. >> if i could just mention, the supreme court case you cited is in addition to the supreme court's decision that came out in june. that was a situation where the administration had written what they called a tailoring rule in the context of carbon emissions under the clean air act. and what the court decided in uarg was, you know, you don't have the authority to write regulations that are directly contrary to unambiguous statutory language. when congress acts without ambiguity in a statute, the job of the executive is to faithfully execute that law. and that means abiding by whatever numbers or deadlines congress provides in the statute. so congress in the clean air act, i think, mentioned 100 tons of emissions. and this carbon tailoring rule upped that to 100,000 tons. the supreme court said, you can't do that. b

justice ruth bader ginsburg, stice sonia sotomayor, justice kagan, our three justices stood against theourt's decision in the hobby lobby case. they sit on the highest court in the nation and by no coincidence the three women's dissent is representative of what i heard from the women i talk to in my district. i ask women at home to send me in three words how they feel about the court's decision. this is what they shared with me. jennifer from melrose, sad, disappointing, disturbing. anna from framingham, backwards, scary, hurtful. jeannine, disgusted, wrong, outraged. usan from cambridge, need more ginsbergs. the court's decision to strike down women's access to basic health care is only the latest and systemic efforts to unwind the progress women have made. why aren't we demanding equal pay for women from our employers rather than giving a woman's boss the right to make the most personal health care decisions for her and her family? congress has an obligation to correct this course. the amendment and the protect women's health from corporate interference act makes certain that a woman'

company called quicksie and their founder a young israeli born guy tomer kagan, moved to silicon valleyg for things you don't just want to search the web. you want to search inside of apps, inside of all your good apps, the restaurant reservations, whether hotels are available, whether or not you can get to go to the places you want. he calls it deep search and launched this company five years ago with a little bit of money from, surprise, surprise, eric schmidt, the one-time ceo of google and now he's circling back on him saying i'm going to take google down and partnering up with a chinese internet giant ali baba. >> i want him to do that inside my brain. i need to deep search function there. >> makes me think about the deep internet from "house of cards." >> i'm with you. >> carlos watson, thank you. >> happy friday, carlos. >> happy friday. >>> next up for us on "new day," john walsh from "america's most wanted" is back at it, hunting down criminals around the country. we will have a preview of his new show on cnn. it is great, "the hunt." stay with us. hey pal? you ready? can you p