you have congress constructing a detailed record. 100,000 pages, and congress has structured mccain/feingold based upon the standards set by the supreme court in austin versus michigan chamber of commerce, and then as justice stevens noted, the court pulled the rug out from congress, affirming the constitutionality that had been in effect for 100 years, and as justice stevens conclude showing, quote, great disrespect for aco-equal branch. i will try to make my questions as pointed as i can. to the extent that you can answer them briefly, i'd appreciate it. we don't have a whole lot of ti time. what is your thinking on the disrespect for theongress when we take a supreme court decision and we structure a law based on those standards with the customary deference due congress on fact-finding. isn't that really what justice stevens calls it, disrespect? >> well, senator specter, as you know, i argued that case. as you know, i filed briefs on behalf of the united states in that case, and in those briefs the government made a similar kind of argument, that great deference was due to congress in th

. -- mccain feingold, but the 1907 law. >> it is clear on the face of the opinion that it does not take a lot to realize what the court gave to the pork -- corporate sector. it was a fine grained statutory interpretation. it is not very accessible to the public. it is kind of an insider's game. it really takes the unpacking of it, in explaining what it is that the plaintiff employee is being asked to approve, and what kind of evidence they can realistically present to avoid dismissal of their claim before it even gets to a jury, which is how the game is played a lot of these statutory cases. it is worth paying attention to these statutory cases for that reason. >> can i make another point about this which shows the disingenuous of the court's decision making approach? when you compare what it did in grows and the anti-retaliation cases -- in gross and the anti- retaliation cases, it refused to acknowledge burden shifting. the ada was complete parallel in meaning and language. they refused to attach significance to that. in these anti-retaliation cases, the court relied very heavily on t

you have congress constructing a detailed record. 100,000 pages, and congress has structured mccain/feingold based upon the standards set by the supreme court in austin versus michigan chamber of commerce, and then as justice stevens noted, the court pulled the rug out from congress, affirming . . constitutionality that had been in effect for 100 years, and as justice stevens conclude showing, quote, great disrespect for a co-equal branch. i will try to make my questions as pointed as i can. to the extent that you can answer them briefly, i'd appreciate it. we don't have a whole lot of ti time. what is your thinking on the disrespect for the congress when we take a supreme court decision and we structure a law based on those standards with the customary deference due congress on fact-finding. isn't that really what justice stevens calls it, disrespect? >> well, senator specter, as you know, i argued that case. as you know, i filed briefs on behalf of the unid states in that case, and in those briefs the government made a similar kind of argument, that great deference was due to congress in t

that was but mccain-feingold act, aspects of that that was challenged.she is there to defend the constitutionality. she did not succeed. it was a 5-4 vote of the court to strike down provisions of that law that restricted political expenditures by corporations. and that decision, which was delivered in january, has become a major political flash point that the president, very distressedt it, democrats in congress very distressed at the court's view that the first amendment protect and unfettered right of corporations to spend on political campaigns. republicans have been somewhat more muted, but to the extent that it expressed opinions, they have supported that decision. we are likely to hear a lot about that case during this week because four democrats, it is a symbol of what they see as a very pro-business court that is skewing the log to favor corporations. republican certainly don't agree with that. host: now to your calls. surely, owings mills, maryland. talking about elena kagan. caller: i am really upset that democrats never seem to be able to get

. -- mccain feingold, but the 1907 law. >> it is clear on the face of the opinion that it does not take a lot to realize what the court gave to the pork -- corporate sector. it was a fine grained statutory interpretation. it is not very accessible to the public. it is kind of an insider's game. it really takes the uncking of it, in explaining what it is th the plaintiff employee is being asked to approve, and what kind of evidence they can realistically present to avoid dismissal of their claim before it even gets to a jury, which is how the game is played a lotf these statutory cases. it is worth paying attention to these statutory cases for that reason. >> can i make another point about this which shows the disingenuous of the court's decision making approach? when you compare what it did in grows and the anti-retaliation cases -- in gross andhe anti- retaliation cases, it refused to acknowledge burden shifting. the ada was comete parallel in meaning and language. they refused to attach significance to that. in these anti-retaliation cases, the court relied very heavily on that parall

that was but mccain-feingold act, aspects of that that was challenged. she is there to defend the constitutionality. she did not succeed. it was a 5-4 vote of the court to strike down provisions of that law that restricted political expenditures by corporations. and that decision, which was delivered in january, has become a major political flash point that the president, very distressed at it, democrats in congress very distressed at the court's view that the first amendment protect and unfettered right of corporations to spend on political campaigns. republicans have been somewhat more muted, but to the extent that it expressed opinions, they have supported that decision. we are likely to hear a lot about that case during this week because four democrats, it is a symbol of what they see as a very pro-business court that is skewing the log to favor corporations. republican certainly don't agree with that. host: now to your calls. surely, owings mills, maryland. talking about elena kagan. caller: i am really upset that democrats never seem to be able to

add to h.r. 5175 the same expeded judicial review process that congress approved as part of the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform law. because h.r. 5175 raises the same conitutional issues that wereeissued in the citizens united case, expedited review should be included in this legislation as well. the base bill does not contain the reference 28 u.s.c. 2284 that congress specifically designed and has used repeatedly to assure the prompt resolution of constitutional claims. judicial review may not have been included because the base bill was designed to stall judici review by the upreme court until after the 2010 elections. i hope that is not the case. but this house can only dispel that suspicion and facilitate the prompt constitutional review of this legislation by approving this moti to recommit. mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. lungren: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, as i mentioned, this motion to recommit is in three parts. it applies the acts expanded ban on expenditures by foreign nationals to include lobbyists who regist

flag burning case, mcca mccain-feingold and many, many others. so the court's discussion is limited there if there is a congressional direction. i think it is fair from that proposition to ask a nominees whether they would take cases. i spoke at length on the floor about what i consider the inappropriate decline of a number of cases considered. 100 years ago, a little more than 1886, e supreme court decided 146 cases, 146 opinions, a little more than 20 years ago, 1987, 146 opinions. last year, lt term, 78 arguments, 75 opinions. a lot of circuit splits, important cases areot taken up by the supreme court. the supreme court declined to hear the conflict, which arguably is the most serious clash between congress' article one powers under the foreign intelligence surveillance act which sets the exclusive means for getting a warrant, listening to a wiretap, probable cause, and the president's warrantless wiretap program justified under article ii. the detroit federal judge said it was unconstitutional, the sixth circuit ducked it with a standing dec