and to adams left is nicole saharsky, the honorable nicole saharsky according to her name tag. may be a regular person, but she is a an extra ordinary -- an extraordinary lawyer. she is an assistant to the solicitor general, so she serves and the government office that handles all the government's litigation before the supreme court. i believe you have been there since 2007 and is now the longest-serving assistant in the office. ofan say that is also one the finest advocates before the supreme court. and i know that from personal experience, having argued against her last fall in a very interesting securities case. so, in terms of the format for this morning, we have approximately 90 minutes. we are going to chat amongst ourselves for most of that time. but at the end, we will take questions from the audience and if you are too shy to ask, feel free to send me a tweet. i will be happy to read out your question if you don't want to vocalize it yourself and indeed i have a few questions that were submitted i'm twitter earlier this week -- on twitter earlier this week. but let me

and to his left is nicole saharsky. the honorable nicole saharsky. she may be a regular person, but she is an extraordinary lawyer. she has argued 23 cases before the supreme court. if my math is correct. assistant to the solicitor general. she serves in the office that handles the government of litigation for the supreme court. she has been there since 2007. she is now the longest-serving assistant in the office and i can say, one of the finest advocates before the supreme court. i can say that from personal experience, having argued against her last fall in the omnicare case. in terms of the format for this morning, we have approximately 90 minutes. we will just kind of chat amongst ourselves for most of that time, but we will take questions from the audience. if you are too shy, send me a tweet, and i will read a question. if you do not want to vocalize it yourself, and i do have a few questions submitted on twitter earlier this week. but me start with a very general question for all of the members of the panel. start with adam, then to miguel, an

and to adam's left is nicole saharsky, the honorable nicole saharsky according to her name tag -- [laughterd nicole is -- >> just a regular person. >> nicole may be a regular person, but she's an extraordinary lawyer. she has argued 23 cases now before the supreme court if my math is correct, and she is an assistant to the solicitor general, so she serves in the government's office that handles all of the government's litigation before the supreme court. i believe nicole has been there since 2007, is that about right? and she is now, actually, the longest-serving assistant in the office, and i can say that she is also one of the finest advocates before the supreme court, and i know that from personal experience having argued against her last fall in a very interesting securities case, the omnicare v. laborers case. so in terms of the format for this morning, we have approximately 90 minutes. we're just going to kind of chat among ourselves for most of that time, but at the end we will take questions from the audience. and if you're too shy to ask, feel prix to send me a tweet -- free to sen

and get adams left is nicole saharsky, the honorable nicole saharsky, according to her name tag -- >> just a regular person. >> may be at regular person but she is extraordinarily. she has argued 23 cases before the supreme court if my math is correct, and she's an assistant to the solicitor general so she serves in the government office that has all the comments litigation before the supreme court. i believe nicole has been there since 2007, is that about right? she is the longest-serving assistant in the office, and i can say she's also one of the finest advocates before the supreme court. i know that from personal experience, having argued against her last fall in the very interesting security's case, the omnicare versus labor's case. in terms of the format for this morning, we have approximately 90 minutes. we would just chat amongst ourselves for most of that time, that the end will take questions from the audience. and if you are too shy, feel free to send me a tweet and i'll be happy to send out your question if you don't want to localize it yourself and, indeed, i have a few q

is nicole saharsky. she may be a regular person, but she is an extraordinary lawyer. she has argued 23 cases before the supreme court. she is an assistant to the solicitor general, so she serves in the office that handles government litigation for the supreme court. she has been there since 2007. is that about right? she is the longest-serving assistant in the office and one of the finest advocates before the supreme court. i know that from personal experience, having argued against her last fall in the omnicare case. in terms of the format for this morning, we have approximately 90 minutes. we will just kind of chat amongst ourselves for most of that time, but we will take questions from the audience. send me a too shy, tweet, and i will read a question. questionshave a few submitted on twitter earlier this week which we will get to at the end. let them start with a general question for all the members of the panel. i will start with adam. if we had to talk about substantive areas of law, and i promise we will not get deeply but ihose issues today, want to start with

and to his left is nicole saharsky she may be a regular person but an extraordinarily the -- extraordinary lawyer arguing 23 cases before the supreme court and serves in the government's office that handles of all the litigation before the supreme court on she has been there since 2007 and is the longest serving assistant and i can say one of the finest advocates before the supreme court and i know that from personal experience. in terms of the format, we have approximately 90 minutes we will chat among ourselves for most of that time. at the end we will take questions from the audience or you can send a question through twitter and i will read that out for quite have a few question misheard -- submitted earlier this week. but i will start with a general question for all members of the panel. and if you had to think of areas that we will get to a deep into those issues but i want to start with general observations about the overall approach with the roberts court. if you had to identify a distinctive characteristic quality of the roberts corporation or any aspect what would that be? >> sta