beginning with justice o'connor's ascension to the bench in 1981, it was very clear that roe vs. wade, the 1973 decision establishing a woman's right to have an abortion was under siege. and each time a new opinion came out it was less sustaining to determine a right to a abortion and it finally got to the point where the majority was down to 5, 5-4. and there had been indications particularly in 1989, o'connor might provide a vote to overturn roe vs. wade and indeed the ragan administration had tried several times to persuade the court directly to overrule it. i chose this particular case for oral argument because of the audacity of counsel who argued in favor of maintaining roe. the women's rights movement very much fearing that roe was in jeopardy had shaped this case to be a genuine test case and we often talk about test cases as if everyone was a test of some new jurisprudencetial. it was put together by the women's right movement as a test that roe was a viable precedent. when katherine colbert put together the brief with her colleagues, they asked one simple question and i

kennedy and o'connor. he knew going in this was a 5-for court because the court had taken the step of issuing a stay on the accounting procedures in florida. that was done on saturday. arguments were on monday. the issuance suggested there were already five votes stacked against mr. wise and vice president gore and if he was going to persuade anyone he had to focus his attention on kennedy and o'connor and if justice kennedy says could we start here there is only one response and that is yes, justice kennedy let's start and discuss that. in fact what eventually happened was the five votes but ultimately decided this case preferred not is a decidedly election that was the carry over for the florida numbers resulted in some people think the election was only decided by nine people ultimately it came down to justice kennedy, justice o'connor and the three much more conservative members of the court, chief justice rehnquist, justice scalia and justice thomas issuing the procurer am that was an on signed for th

>> on justice o'connor. she often does and did say wise old man/wise old woman, end of the day makes the same decision. but she in recent years has modified that. she's no longer quite so sure that that's true. i heard her give a talk a couple of weeks ago in which she backed away from that, i think, in light of current events and quoted -- i think i have the name right -- florence allen, the first woman to be a federal judge, who would say you have to forget you're a woman and you have to remember that you're a woman. >> both. >> john? >> just on this very interesting question, i think it really goes to the heart of what one thinks about the nature of the judicial process, about what the gender is adding. of course, there's a lot of social science evidence that having female judges makes a difference in decisions. of course, it's a leap from that to say the decisions are better. they're different. that doesn't necessarily follow except if you have a view that perhaps justice is best served when you have a d

justice o'connor, i will never forget it -- were you there at that argument? she actually stood up and said you mean to tell me that police could detain a pregnant woman, you know, with a baby, and she keeps playing it out, in the rain, on and on, thinking like, how that ruling could affect fect the real worth experiences. >> imon justice o'connor, she often does and did say wise old man, wise old woman at the end of the day make the same decision, but in recent years she has modified that. she is not quite so sure that's true. i heard her give a talk a couple of weeks ago in which she backed away from that in light of current events and quoted -- i think i have the name right, florence allen who, was the first woman who to be a federal judge, who would say you have to forget you're a woman, and you have to remember that you're a woman. >> this is a very interesting question. i think it goes to the heart of what one thinks about the nature of the judicial process, about what the gender is adding. there is a lot of social science evidence that having a female j

president when sandra day o'connor graduated from law school 50 plus years ago. in the only offer, the only offer that she got the law firm was for a position as a legal secretary. and she had this great background, very impressive background and yet the only offer that she not what was as the legal secretary. judge ginsburg who now sits on the court is similar obstacles. when she entered harvard in the 1950's she was in the only one of nine women in a class of one of 500, one of nine women in a class of more than 500 and one professor at chile will asked her to justify taking a place that would have gone to a man in that class of harvard. nine women, 500 spots and someone actually esther to justify the line that she was there. and suppose you could justify now by saying she is now on the supreme court. later justice ginsberg was passed over for prestigious clerkship despite her impressive credentials. looking at judge sotomayor's on record as a lawyer, prosecutor and judge the you can see we have come a long way. she was confirmed by the senate for the district

justice o'connor this morning said, no, of course not. then she pointed out -- this is a quote -- but about half of all law graduates today are women, and we have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers, so they ought to be represented on the court. she was also asked later in the interview about opponents of justice sotomayor who have brought up this term "activist judge." she was asked that, i know that is a term you have railed against in the past. what is it about the term that you object to? and she answered, "i don't think the public understands what's meant by it. it's thrown around by many in the political field, and i think that probably for most users of the term, they're distinguishing between the role of a legislator and a judge. and they say that a judge should not legislate. the problem, of course, justice o'connor said is at the appellate level, and the supreme court is at the top of the appellate level, rulings at the court do become binding law. and so it's a little hard to talk in

ago when justice o'connor conceded her disappointment because when she was leaving and not replaced by another woman, the percentage of women on the supreme court dropped by 50%. now, sandra day o'connor and justice ruth bader ginsburg weren't being prejudiced or biased or discriminatory. of course not. and i hope that all americans are encouraged by the nomination of judge sotomayor, hope they join together and celebrate what it says about america being a land of opportunity for all. she is the first nominee to the supreme court in 100 years to have been nominated to three federal judicial positions by three different presidents. it was president george h.w. bush as a republican who nominated her to be a federal district court judge. president bill clinton then nominated and the senate confirmed her to be on the second circuit court of appeals, the circuit that covers my own state of vermont. she actually, mr. president, you may be interested in knowing this, she has the most federal court experience of any supreme court nominee during the past 100 years. this is a remarkable perso

already he seems to be much less sympathetic to campaign finance restrictions than justice o'connor. that is the con text in which we might see a decision reversing that. another issue that came out of the the oral argument was i think many of the justices became very uncomfortable when they realized that the theory of the mcconnell case and the theory the government pushed would allow the government to prevent even books, let alone films, from coming out 60 days before an election if they were considered to be an election communication. and this seemed to be extremely troubling to the court. after all, what could be more core first amendment speech than a book about a candidate right before an election? i think that up to date scores what i think is the oddity, threes in my view, of first amendment doctrine. the first amendment is being pushed in a variety of ways, and yet being narrowed around a core political speech around election time. i expect the court is going to allow films like hillary to flourish, and so we can look forward to a lot more of them in 2012. >> on that upbeat

you know, actually today justice o'connor was on the "today" show and she was asked about her work o'connor was on the "today" show and she was asked about her work on the like. and she was actually asked about -- she was asked about judge sotomayor. justice o'connor was on the today show this morning. she was asked about her work and what it was like. she was asked about judge sonia sotomayor. what she said was, she was asked when you retire, you will like a woman to replace you. you were disappointed when a woman did not replace you. what is your reaction to the nomination of sonia sotomayor? she said, i am pleased that we will have another woman on the court. i do think it is important not to have just one. our nearest neighbor, canada, also has a court of nine members. in canada, there is a woman chief justice, and four women also on the canadian court. she was asked, do you think there is a right number of women who should be on the court? she said no, of course not. then she pointed out that half of all law graduates are women today. we have a tremendous number of qualified women in t

and justice o'connor, i'll never forget it. were you there at that argument, do you remember? she sat up and said, you mean to tell me that police could detain a pregnant woman, you know, with a baby, and then she keeps playing it out in the rain, you know, on and on -- [laughter] thinking, you know, how that rule, how that kind of ruling could affect the real world experiences. so anyway, moving on. >> jan, could i just -- >> linda, quick comment. >> on justice o'connor, she often does and did say, you know, wise old man, wise old woman at the end of the day make the same decision, but she in recent years has modified that. she's no longer quite so sure that that's true, and i heard her give a talk a couple of weeks ago in which she backed away from that, i think, in light of current events and quoted i think i have the name right, florence allen, who was the first woman to be a federal judge who would say you have to forget you're a woman, and you have to remember that you're a rom. woman. >> both. john. >> yes. just on this very interesting question i think it really goes t

what we talk about, just as alito, it is important to understand from justice o'connor. he seems to be less sympathetic to can pipe -- campaign finance restrictions than justice o'connor. that is the context in which we might see a decision reversing it. another issue that came out of the oral argument is that the justices became very uncomfortable when they realized that the theories of the mccormick -- mcconnell case will allow the government to prevent books and films from coming up 60 days before an election if they were considered to be an election communication. this seemed to be extremely troubling to the court. what would be more corp. first amendment speech than a book about a candidate right before an election? i think that underscores what i think is the first commitment doctrine. it is pushed in many ways and yet narrowed. i expect the court to allow films like hillary to flourish. we can look forward to a lot more of them in 2012. >> there is one more case that we have to talk about. we do not want to go by without doing this. this is dealing with a coal com

justice o'connor used to be in so many cases a critical vote. justice kennedy often plays that role now. why should we say about the place of justice kennedy in the court? fifthly, is the court today more receptive, or i should say less receptive to nontraditional legal sources? the warren court was famous, like in brown versus board of education, for having social science data in its footnotes. is the present court less receptive to data in this respect? one might think of the argument over the use of comparative or international law data, which has been somewhat controversial. sixth, what are the methodological debates? justices into debates about textualism, regionalism, and questions of that kind. seventh, " trend, if any, would you care to remark on from the beginning to the present time of the roberts court? are we able to paint any kind of picture of this particular court? i mentioned to the declining dockets. he was not here to speculate on how cases appear to be decided on merits. number nine, what i call avoidance techniques. there are

and already seems to be much less sympathetic to campaign finance restrictions than justice o'connor. the context in which we might see a decision reversing mccain, another issue that came out of the oral argument is many of the justices became very uncomfortable when they realized the theory of the mcconnell case would allow the government to prevent even books, love alone fillms, from coming out before election, that underscores the oddity of first amendment doctrine for some time, the first amendment is being pushed in a variety of ways and yet narrowed in this day of, let -- political speech around election time. i expect the court in one way or another is going to allow films like hillary to flourished, so we can look forward to a lot mo of them in 2012. >> we are in west virginia as we speak, this is the case -- there are not many cases which are more familiar to readers of newspapers, this caperton case has to be on our docket. >> many of you know the background facts of this case but let me summarize briefly. there is a major dispute between two coal companies in west virgini

now, sandra day o'connor, justice ruud baader ginsberg weren't being discriminatory. of course not. hopefully what it says about america is being a land of opportunity for all. she is the first nominee to the supreme court in 100 years to have been nominated to three federal judicial positions by three different presidents. it was president bush george h.w. bush whombings a republican, who nominated her to be a federal district court judge.

john o'connor said south carolina gov. staff said the governor is taking on appellation trout, ending four days in which the staff and state officials say they have not heard from him. night in his office or the state law enforcement division that provides security had been able to reach him since he left the mansion thursday in a black suburban as uv assigned to his security detail, according to three people according to the -- familiar with the situation. the government spokesman did not disclose the trailer was hiking nor revealed whether he was hiking alone. his last known location was near atlanta late last week. a mobile telephone tower picked

this was a period in which the center held justice o'connor's vote matter add great deal, so roe vs. wade was not overturned. affirmative action survived, and substantive due process that i mentioned. then came 2005, the extraordinary sequence of events which seemed a few weeks in time in which president bush nominated john roberts to fill o'connor's seat and then justice rehnquist died and roberts was moved over to the chief justice's chair and then samuel alito was nominated to bill o'connor's seat so that was the beginning of the roberts court. i thought i would give you a glimpse. some of these will be fanl yar, sots not, not so much about how the court has changed in doctrinal terms, but in many ways what a profoundly different court it is from the court it was in 1969 in terms of who is on the court and how they do their business. the first place, there has been a complete turnover. there are no warren court justices left. indeed, i believe there is no one on the court who behaves like a warren court justices. there are no brennans or thurgood marshalls on the court. secondly,

this was a time during which in effect to the center held justice o'connor's a load mattered a great deal so roe vs. wade was not overturned, affirmative action survives from body to do cruder for example substantively process i've mentioned. and then in 2005 the extraordinary sequence of events within a few weeks in time where president bush nominated john roberts to phil o'connor state, and then chief justice rehnquist died in roberts was moved to the chief justice chair and then justice scalia was nominated to fill o'connor seeds and then you have the two bush appointees on the court to. so that was the conclusion of the concluding chapter of the rehnquist court of the beginning of the roberts court to. what i thought i would to before i turn to the panel is to give you a glimpse, some of these will be familiar and some may not be, not so much about how the court has changed in doctrinal terms, not to talk of the cases of doctrine but in many ways what a profoundly different chord it is recorded was in 1969. in terms of who is on the course and how they do their business. the firs

justice o'connor's vote mattered a great deal. then came 2005. this extraordinary sequence of events where and president bush had rehnquist, and samuel alito had rehnquist, and samuel alito was nominated that was the conclusion of the concluding chapter of the rehnquist court and the beginning of the roberts court. what i thought i would do before it turned to the panel is give you a glance -- the saudis will be familiar, some may not be. not so much about how the court has changed in trial terms, but in many ways with a profoundly different court it is from the court it was in 1969. in terms of who is on the court and how they do their business. first place has been a complete turnover. there are no justices left. there is no one on the present court who behaves like a war and the court justice. there are no thurgood marshall's or william brennan's. i was intrigued by chief justice roberts answer from the audience a few minutes ago about the phenomena and that all nine of the present justices came to the supreme court from the federal courts of

she was rolling for a major loss if she they're offended kennedy or o'connor because she clearly needed both of them. and from the excerpts we have played for the audience it's clear both of them came into the arguments skeptical of her go for broke approach. i don't think it was -- you could say it was an admiration in the sense that not many causes or that emotional. dahlia's chapter is about another one that is, the death penalty case ase, too. but most time you go into an oral argument, the issue is not quite as close as it was in this case. most of the cases are not bound to be 5-for. the courts still decide the cases by seven to two, 63 so when we go into a case that it's likely to be five for the risks rise exponentially. so with kathryn simply understood as a political activity she couldn't do anything else and in fact she was lucky in this sense no matter which way the argument went or the outcome went they had a political issue because if the supreme court struck down roe you could make the argument we have got to get a president that cares about reproductive rights and so, wh

what was concerning the court, obviously the majority of the court, and retired justice o'connor had spoken about this very case quite a bit, was the appearance of justice for sale. and that lots of money going to state judicial races were making people believe that they had to participate in some way in financing judicial elections or they wouldn't get a fair hearing when their case came before the court. i argued this case, and i knew the court was going to be concerned about opening the flood gates, and where we were going from here and what kind of bias would we be demonstrating, or being friends with a justice, or a former clerk of the justice. so i focused a lot on the justice for sale concern that i think underlay what the justices were concerned about, and i actually went back to the magna carta and i found a provision that said something to the same effect, that justice will not be for sale, justice will not be bought. we found something in both the magna carta and picked up by blackistone. i thought maybe that will calm down the conservatives that are worried about constitu

sonia sotomayor has actually in her speeches taken issue with justice o'connor's, and, you know, i know those of you who have heard her speak about this, she frequently will say that a wise man and a wise woman will reach the same result at the end. sotomayor has said she doesn't agree with that, that she thinks that a woman can actually reach a better result. i actually have thought that -- >> jan, let me ask -- >> outside the law maybe women do have better thoughts on many things. [laughter] >> once you've tried to explain the opinion and you've now got this advice to the country, assuming it's the job of the supreme court to try to clarify what officials at the school level are -- >> oh, you don't want to talk about women on the court? you want to talk about schools? >> i'm just curious to know what do officials now do faced with this opinion? do they just stop strip searches altogether? >> no, no, no. and i think justice souter wrote a pretty careful opinion because the schools really wanted some guidance. as the chief said in his conversation with judge wilkinson on some of these i

she was really rolling for a major loss if she either offended kennedy or o'connor because she clearly needed both of them. and from the excerpts that we played for our audience, it's clear that both of them came into the arguments skeptical of her go for broke approach. i don't think it was -- well, you could probably say it was an aberration in the sense that not many causes are that emotional. i mean, dahlia's chapter is about another and a death penalty case is too. most of the time when you go into an oral argument, the issue is not quite as close as it was in this case. most of the cases are not bound to be 5-4. it's still an exception. a court decides cases 7-2, 6-3 so when you know going into a that it's likely to be 5-4, the risks just rise hugely. and katherine understood as a political activity she couldn't do anything else. and, in fact, she was lucky in this sense. no matter which way the argument went or the outcome went, they had a political issue. because if the supreme court struck down roe, then you could make the argument that we have got to get a president who cares

and, of course, that nomination was replaced justice o'connor who was recognized as the pivotal vote on the supreme court. now, if something that significant required 48 days and republicans and democrats agreed were sufficient to prepare minor hearing in accordance with our agreement in the initial schedule, certainly that is a precedent that says that we have more than adequate time to prepare for the confirmation hearing for judge sotomayor. in selecting the date i'm trying to be fair to all concerned. i want to be fair it the nominee. allow her the earliest opportunity to respond to assassinations made about her character. it is not fair for her critics to call her a racist and to be a part of the cue cru k -- in 200n president bush made his first nomination to the supreme court, senator mcconnell who is in the majority whip asserted that the senate should consider and confirm the nominations within 60 to 70 days. we worked hard to achieve that. the nomination of judge sotomayor should more easily be considered within that time frame. we were still able to complete senate conside

and, of course, that nomination was to replace justice o'connor who was recognized as a pivotal vote on the supreme court. now, if something that significant required 48 days and republicans and democrats agreed it were sufficient to prepare for that hearing in accordance with our agreement in the initial schedule, certainly that is a precedent that says we have more than adequate time to prepare for the confirmation hearing for judge sotomayor. and in selecting the date, i'm trying to be fair to all concerned. i want to be fair to the nominee, allow her the earliest possible opportunity to respond to attacks made about her character. it's not fair for critics to be calling her racist, one even equating her with the head of the ku klux klan, an outrageous comment both republicans and democrats have said outrageous. i'll ignore how outrageous it is, but she can't speak to it until she's in the hearing. in 2005 when president bush made his first nomination to the supreme court, senator mcconnell who was in the majority whip asserted that the senate should consider and confirm the nomin

what was concerning the court -- and justice o'connor had spoken about this very case quite a bit. it was the appearance of justice for sale. the loss of money going into state's judicial races were making people believe they had to participate in some way in financing judicial elections, where they would not get a fair hearing when their case came before the court. i argued this case. i knew the court was going to be very concerned about opening the floodgates and where we go from here and what kind of bias will be demonstrated by going to someone's wedding or being close friends with a justice or former clerk of the justice or living in the same neighborhood and that sort of thing. i focused a lot of the justice for sale concern that i think underlay what the justices were concerned about. of a back to the magna court of -- i went back to the magna car timys saying -- magna carta, sag justice will not be barred. -- will not be bought. i picked up the fifth vote to support the final outcome. one of the justices during the oral arguments, i think it was justice stevens said it is n

beginning with justice o'connor's ascension to the bench, it was clear in the roe vs. wade decision establishing a woman's right to have abortion, was under siege. each time an new opinion came out, the court appeared to be less committed to sustaining the right to terminate an abortion and it finally got to the point where the majority was down to 5. five-4. there were indications in 1989 that there might be a vote, and the administration had tried several times to persuade the court to overturn the ruling. i chose this particular case for oral arguments because of the audacity of the council who argued in favor of maintaining growth. the women's rights movement, very much hearing was in jeopardy, shaved this case into a genuine test case. everyone was a test of the new principal. this was put together by the women's rights movement as a fundamental test of a viable precedent. we put together the brief, we asked the simple question, it was entirely unlike any question you will see at the front of the supreme court's petition for review. if you put that as a factual st

experiences matter just as they did and just as they have for in the courts of justice sandra day o'connor and the others. i think judge sotomayor has said in her visits to the speech you are referring to was a poor choice of words. >> i am wondering if it was a poor choice of words, if she said it when it might have been in error. it was as multiple times, i am not sure -- >> i think the overall scene is the experiences and backgrounds matter parade will talk about in 2001 was a poor choice of words. again, she said as much. >> it is not specific meeting, utterances, words. -- it is about a specific meaning, utterances, words. there appears to be a pattern of inconsistencies. >> what your unnamed critics do not seem to subscribe to any pattern that is in the hundreds of opinions that she has written. >> pattern over words? >> if you want to know how judge is going to rule, i am under the impression is how they have world is a good indication -- how they have ruled is a good indication. the impartiality of how she looks at these issues has been pointed out by much news reporting over the p

arrived almost on the eve of the hearing itself, and of course that nomination was to replace justice o'connor who was recognized as as as a pivotal vote on the supreme court. now, if something that significant required 48 days and republicans and democrats agreed were sufficient to prepare for that hearing in accordance with our agreement in the initial schedule, certainly that is a precedent that says we have more than adequate time to prepare for the confirmation hearing for judge sotomayor. we're trying to be fair to all concerned. i want to be fair to the nominees and offer the earliest date. it is not fair for the critics to call her a racist and equate her with the head of the chu klux klan -- klu klux klan. she can't speak to it until she is in the hearing. in 2005, when president bush made his first nomination to the supreme court, senator mcconnell, the majority whip, observed that the senate should consider and confirm the nominations within 60 to 70 days. we worked hard to achieve that. the nomination of judge sotomayor should more easily be considered within that time frame. we we

i also voted on chief justice rehnquist or for chief justice and sandra day o'connor for associate justice and i had one rule on every single one of those. i would make up my mind based on the record. based on the cases i read. based on what i saw and heard from the nominee and refused to meet with the special interest groups of either the right or the left. i would urge senators, we get well paid. we have great staffs. why don't we forget the -- either the right wing or the left wing groups. forget those who want to raise money and for their own interests based on who a nominee is and represent the country and make up our own minds. don't make up our own minds based on somebody having a fundraiser, make our our own mind based on what we see here. you know, it is a pretty awesome responsibility when a justice of the supreme court is nominated. most justices will serve long after the president who nominated them has gone. long after most of the senators who vote on them that nominee is gone. we have 300 million americans. there are only 101 americans who get a direct say on who is going to

that judge replaced justice o'connor who was the pivotal vote on the supreme court. now, if something that significant required 41 days and democrats and republicans were in agreement they were prepared for that hearing, certainly that is a precedent that says we have more than adequate time to prepare for the confirmation hearing for judge sotomayor. i'm trying to be fair to all concerned. i want to be fair to the nominee. allow her the opportunity to respond to attacks made to her credit. it is not fair for people to call her a racist and equate her with people from the ku klux klan, an outrageous zamente from republicans and democrats, but she can't speak to it until she's in the hearing. in 2005 senator mcconnell whorks is in the -- who is in the majority whip, said the senate should confirm the non nominations within 60 to 70 days. we worked hard to achieve that. the nomination of judge sotomayor should be more easily completed within that time frame. we were able to complete the senate confirmation, and john roberts was confirmed 72 days after his initially des

as justice sandra day o'connor wrote in -- for the court, quote, the oun formally broad sweep of the geographical limitations demonstrates a lack of tailoring, end quote. additionally the proposed rule in the kennedy bill would require ads to use only black text on white background. again the united states supreme court found a similar provision unconstitutional. zauderer, i'm doing all right with you today? , and the office of disciplinary council n. that case dealing with advertisers in legal services the use of colors and illustrations in ads are entitled to the same first amendment protection given verbal speech. justice brian wright wrote that pictures and illustrations in ads cannot be banned simply on the strength of the general argument that the visual content of advertising may under some circumstances be deexceptive or manipulative, end quote. there are numerous other speech restrictions in this legislation that raise serious first amendment issues and will create a swarm of lawsuits that will only divert us from trying to develop more effective approaches to tobacco use in

john o'connor said south carolina gov. staff said the governor is taking on appellation trout, ending four days in which the staff and state officials say they have not heard from him. night in his office or the state law enforcement division that provides security had been able to reach him since he left the mansion thursday in a black suburban as uv assigned to his security detail, according to three people according to the -- familiar with the situation. the government spokesman did not disclose the trailer was hiking nor revealed whether he was hiking alone. his last known location was near atlanta late last week. a mobile telephone tower picked up a signal from his own, according to a source familiar with the situation. again, more details available at the state newspaper from south carolina. stock is on the phone from long island. the economy, are the mixed signals? if so, where are we heading? caller: i don't know where we are heading. but thank you for c-span. i am baffled sometimes at the american people that -- h

sandra day o'connor and john paul stevens were in the dissent and the group that judge sotomayor was associated with filed a brief opposing this parental notification law saying -- quote -- "any effort to overturn or restrict the rights in roev. wade," they opposed any restriction, even allowing participates of a minor child to give parental notification or have parental modification their child would go through a major medical procedure and she took a stand opposed to that parental right that most of the american public, 75% of the american public support that parental right of that notification. she opposed it. according to the "the new york times" -- quote -- "the board monitored all litigation undertaken by the funds' lawyers and a number of the lawyers said miss sotomayor was involved and ardent supporter of the various legal efforts during the time with the group." i'm concerned judge sotomayor will bring this agenda to the court. judge sotomayor has given speeches and written articles promoting judicial activism and the president said "judges should have the empathy to recogni

justice o'connor used to be in so many cases the fifth and critical vote. justice kennedy is often maying that role out. what should we say about the place of justice kennedy on the court? fifthly, is the court today more less receptive to non-traditional legal sources. the warren court was famous in brown versus board of education for having social science data in its footnotes. is the present court less receptive to data of that kind? in this respect, one might think about the argument over the use of comparative or international law data, which is somewhat controversial. sixthly, what about the method logical debates? do justices enter into debates over things like text ulism and originalism and questions of that kind? second, what trends if any, would you care to remark on from the beginning to the present time of the roberts' court? it has only been four years, but are we beginning to paint any kind of picture of this particular court? eighth, i mentioned the declining docket. does anyone care to speculate on why fewer cases appear to be decided on the

and in the end, as justice o'connor has said, it became simply a measure to insist on racially and ethnicically proportionate representation and the whole definition of racial polarization, getting away from racism, is part of that picture. >> the last question here. >> i think much of what i have to say here is -- [inaudible] i think the question is the criteria for preclearance. which is essentially to say, there's a pragmatic question here. you just stated it. the preclearance forces people not to want to get into litigation over their changes and therefore, they do things in compliance. if you don't have that preclearance in south carolina, georgia, other than athens and atlanta, most of alabama, mississippi, and northern louisiana, above new orleans, you know, will there be the back sliding, you know, without that coercion? that doesn't make majority-minority districts, you know, the only real potential remedy, but to does make -- does provide some course for us. the only other thing i wanted to say is i deeply agree with richard on the whole question that we need a national law on registr

justice o'connor used to be in some encases the with our critical loads, justice kennedy is not implying that rollout. what should we say about place of justice kennedy on the court? fifthly, is the accord today more receptive or shouldn't say less receptive to non-traditional legal sources. in the warren court was a famous line in brown vs. board of education for having a social science data in its with nouns. is the present court less receptive to data have that kind and in this respect one might think of the arguments over the use of comparative or international law did it which as you know has been somewhat controversial and what about methodological the beit? to the justices enter into debates over things like textualism, regionalism, and questions of that kind? seventh, what true and if any would you care to remark on from the beginning to the present time of the roberts court? it has ali been for years but are beginning to be able to pay any kind of picture for this particular court? i mentioned the declining dockets. does anyone care to speculate on five syracuses decided on the

luis martin, michelle o'connor, master sergeant sherry lynn olds. h.r. 2410 remembers their sacrifice and provides restitution to the loved ones they left behind. mr. speaker, this provision is the very least a grateful nation can do. i urge an aye vote on h.r. 2410 and i want to thank chairman berman, ranking member ros-lehtinen. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman continues to reserve? ms. ros-lehtinen: yes. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield a minute to a member of the appropriations committee, mr. schiff, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schiff: i request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i'd like to commend the foreign affairs committee for all their hard work on the foreign affairs authorization act and thank mr. berman and his staff for working to include the daniel parole act to this legislation. it brings much-needed atonings a critical human rights issue this calls upon the secretary of state to greatly expand its examination of the status of t

. >> i'm molly o'connor and i'm a junior at the university of dallas. i have an interesting situation in a i'm on a kind of conservative campus already. we have a lot of people who are ideologically conservative but they have -- we have trouble motivating them to action and to get involved. so how would you suggest that you get people involved? >> i would find a topic or a subject that interests them. university of dallas, i don't know. but i would think the 9/11 project would be something that could really touch people's hearts. and get them interest and involved. it just depends on what the real -- i mean, you can't -- you bring somebody to speak on healthcare, it isn't going to work probably. as big a deal as it is in our country and as much i wish that it got college students enthusiastic so far we haven't found that it does. find that issue that is really the hot topic. maybe it's multiculturism. maybe it's political correctness. i would bring in somebody -- do you all have a women's studies center or something along those lines? >> no. >> you don'

past winners include colin powell, bill and melinda gates and oprah and sandra day o'connor. this year, four outstanding delawareans have won awards because of innovative programs and dedication to inspiring fellow citizens to service. elaine chester created a program through the delaware division of family services to help low-income children receive wrapped holiday gifts matching children in need with people interested in sending gift. under her leadership which is one of the largest corporate gift drives in delaware. it benefits hundreds of childrens annually including those terminally ill. since the expansion in nursing home the elderly receive gifts from employees, as well. leonard young, also wilmington, earned his jefferson award for tireless promotion of public health, education, and wellness initiatives encouraging others to get regular preventive health screening has led delawareans to incorporate healthy living into their routines educating youth about the dangers of substance abuse and preventing violent behavior in relationships, a leader in the community and his