paul clement, give us a sense of how engaged the country was in this. was this hugely controversial or was this a washington story? . >> this was definitely not a washington story. it helps to kind of understand the stage completely. think about fdr at this point. he's just been re-elected for his second term. he's dealing with the great depression. nobody is worried about whether it's the great recession. this is the great depression. he's trying to deal with it innovatively and passing the legislation getting struck down by the court. he's in his second term. by the time he's done with his fourth term, he will have appointed more supreme court justices than any other president than george washington. at this point he's like jimmy carter. he's been a full-term president and he hasn't put anybody on the court. he's very frustrated with the court. he's very frustrated with the fact that they're striking down his legislation. he's of the view that they are really out of touch with the whole country, and that's part of the reason the country as a whole rea

paul clement. >> thank you. he had a more balanced view of oral argument, i think, in the sense that i think he understood both the virtues of asking questions and also the virtues of having lawyers have an ample opportunity to explain their positions. and i think in a sense, we've moved to a different place historically, where now supreme court argument anyway is really dominated by the questions. it's funny, at that time justices, and it is booked almost like they felt the need to explain why it was appropriate for them to ask questions at all. i think some lawyers had the idea that oral argument was their time and they got to give this nice prose to share with the justices. i think he thought it was important for the justices to have an opportunity to ask questions, and to have an understanding of what was bothering the justices about their side of the case. >> from washington, d.c., welcome to our discussion. fred, you there? >> caller: yes. >> your question? >> caller: my question is, i would like to know i

. >> so i completely agree with paul clement, but i wanted to add two things. some did criticize hughes at the time for essential hily was signed by -- he had consulted with brandeis about, so there was unanimity among the court about it. one part of the letter said hearing cases in a panel system wouldn't be constitutional, and that seems like an advisory opinion. interestingly in the book that paul clement referred to before about the supreme court hughes condemned other justices for trying to issue advisory opinions. so there is some controversy about that letter, i think. >> next call is from st. joseph, missouri. daniel. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. hi. this is kind of a follow-up to the cornell professor's comment that owen roberts prior to the court-packing plan allied himself more with the four horsemen who were the conservative wing of the court. after the court-packing plan, arguably, owen roberts was a part in the switch in time to save nine. from what i've read, owen roberts would never admit that. does either one of you know why he real

. >> paul clement, you brought a book of his letters i understand. >> yes, it's this book that he wrote, actually a collection of six different lectures that he gave at columbia university. and as i say, it's really a unique insight. because here's ruminations about the supreme court of the united states from somebody who had been an associate justice and would soon be the chief justice of the united states. but it's a candid look on what at this point a lawyer really thinks about the supreme court. >> still highly readable today? >> very highly readable. and it's fascinating, actually, how contemporary a lot of the discussion is. >> very quickly, when first your law students come in, and you teach them about this era, what's the one thing you want them to know about it? >> i want them to know about the switch in time. it may have been political or may not have been, and also what the consequences were. >> i want to say thank you to our three guests who have been with us tonight on our charles evans hughes program from outside the united states supreme court. we appreciate your time wit

guest at our set outside on this beautiful october night in front of the supreme court building, paul clement, who served as u.s. solicitor-general from 2005 to 2008, now at georgetown university law school. thanks for being with us. >> it's great to be here. bernadette meyler is with us. glad to have you. we said that he had two terms on the court. 1910 appointed as an associate justice, at the time the youngest, and in 1930 president hoover reappointed him this time as chief. what was the difference in him as a justice on the court during that 20-year period? did he come back as a different person? >> i think he did. he obviously had some incredible experiences in the interim. everything from obviously the failed presidential run but also served as secretary of state, service on the so-called world court in the hague. he comes back to the job as chief justice as somebody who certainly had many more different experiences, considerable executive branch experience, all of which i'm sure influences him as a justice. >> can you tell us about the court in 1930? >> yes. the court actually in 1930

they love giving paul clement an opportunity to get back to the lectern. if same-sex marriage people had to choose between whether a federal law has to track benefits in states where people are already lawfully married, not shoving marriage down the throats of anybody, but merely making the federal law congruent to state law in an area where state law has traditionally governed, that is a simpler and easier question than the proposition a case would present. >> i agree with that. on affirmative action, the thing to watch is whether it will be a texas-only case or a national case. >> i would bet the white plaintiffs are going to win somehow in that case. otherwise, there would not have taken it. texas had a top-10 system. the top 10 graduates of high schools around the state were automatically admitted to austin. they had a good amount of diversity through that system. in addition to that, texas started using race as an emissions factor. the challenge is really to the extra use of race. the court could say as long as you have got diversity through this one

they love giving paul clement an opportunity to get back to the lectern. if same-sex marriage people had to choose between whether a federal law has to track benefits in states where people are already lawfully married, not shovinmarriage down the throats of anybody, but merely making the federal law congruent to state law in an area where state law has traditionally governed, that is a simpler and easier question than the proposition a case would present. >> i agree with that. on affirmative action, the thing to watch is whether it will be a texas-only case or a national case. >> i would bet the white plaintiffs are going to win somehow in that case. otherwise, there would not have taken it. texas had a top-10 system. the top 10 graduates of high schools around the state were automatically admitted to austin. they had a good amount of diversity through that system. in addition to that, texas started using race as an emissions factor. the challenge is really to the extra use of race. the court could say as long as you have got diversity through this one sy

from ace with a very idiosyncric ss pesese nss assthe, deinexig d ulineyta ea c they love giving paul clement the opportunity to get back to the lectern, and i think for same-sex marriage advocates if theyad thowehe ca werlly ksthedas whpe a already lawfully married is not shoving marriage down the throats of anybody, but merely making the federal law congent totate w nr west adna grn 'susirsi sen on the probate case would present. >> i sure agree with that. on the affirmative action case, i think the thing to watch is whr g t be plifrengote meintase, otherwise they wouldn't have taken it. but you remember, texas had this top ten system that theop ten ar t serh ol mallmi t st diithh st then in addition to that texas started using races one admissions factor. and the challengesll soertul y ag o g'vot rs tugth one system, the top top ten, you can't go beyond to consider race. and that would be, essentially, ra ustio w disaw what was said in the michigan case, and that would be, obviously, a big dl that'll effect universital nd cry cotualnd t ll u r in college admissions. it's interesting to me

. >> he's paul clemente, a 22-year-old college student from san diego. clemente spoke online with someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl. at first clemente says she's too young. but soon asks her if she's had sex and what positions she's used. finally, he gets down to business. >> so when's the time i can come to your house? of course when your mom is not around. i'm asking when, so we can ge out. >> clemente asks if she's had sex in a hot tub. when the decoy answers yes, he writes back -- >> you're making me horny. >> for good measure he sends along this picture of his penis. then he tells her something that really surprises us. >> you're going to be my first. >> that's right. he may think she's 13, but he's the one who says he's a virgin. now the 22-year-old virgin is in the house. >> all right. can you pour me a drink really fast? >> sure, no problem. >> thanks. awesome. yeah. i'm just going to get my hair ready. i'll be right back. >> take your time. >> i'm excited, by the way. >> me too. >> so you're excited too? how are you doing? >> i'm sorry.

and paul clement didn't have a so tghtitne oseha evodotboowon cat the oral agument, very greatly overstated. but it ends up that his argument turns out to be the wier. asou all know, scotusblog is now doing a live blog on dcisi da a o sdhepoeyad 00oped iir veg amothee million hits the to their web site by about 1:00 that afternoon. does that fact change the job pe hnef,reo, the fact that opnshiiste they come down, or is that really such a different audience from yours that it doesn't matter? >> well, i'll add that it's atwe ay. aioo in ses sot semog while we're going to the dissent, i'm always tweeting at the same time. so it's, whi we don't have the specialized audience, we ha a buaty'ngsat rtoieag stitdiena >> so where were you that you could twitr? i guess you were not in the press room with no eleronics? >> i w actuay inhere dit,ee ae ghe [lteat si >> to your larger question, it's really, of course,or a newspaper reporter's changed aneoe wath vely klhewao b ouatpe t w fe tanwr you know, it is really a hge difference. we aougetouttle bit, you k at asiti ul. w curule correct. you know, we

of the holdin thliral juicecided in canheth il hobie a case may be one of the few cases where paul clementkennon to a buzz saw as opposed to seeming to have most of the justices on his sidend his was the tied arour verss cifinai d h case, the petitioner was seeking to obtain a refund of taxes paid for real estate assessments involving the swer hookups and what hapened there ishe taxpayersad an pi upntot of $9,000 or pay interest for $30 a month for 30 years if you prefer to do that. what indianapolis decided to do about a year or so after the land owers paid the full am, id wyth t icular tax and they said we are entitled unde the equal protection clause to get a refund of the amount repaid because we've paid the full amount and other people just pa $3,000 of the 9,000 83 they were onlpaidfrr whhet ht the court held in that case by the 6-free ote is the equal protection clause didn't give the people that paid the full amount of the tax to t a refund because the city had wati n gtarfuns w it twach justice thomas and justice kennedy joined with justice breyer, sotomayor, kagan and justice rob

my good friend paul clement who argued this before the supreme court made the point that it is pointingo the in permissibly. the separation of powers relating to states sovereignty. it did not have to be enforced. it is a very narrow situation. and you cannot have a fundamental part of the separation of powers with political means, and that is what we are talking about. it is purely political means. and the chief talks about his own limiting factors. the amount of the levee is reasonable. what is reasonable? is there any constitutional basis, i would ask any of my colleagues, that would not be reasonable? and then he is talking about enforcing it with the irs. you can also have mandates for the internal revenue code, and then the point that it is somehow less destructive, less onerous if done as a tax. back to my point, a penalty for not buying broccoli is no different. so we are left with a situation of this opinion plus the medicaid stuff, but a very, very dangerous deconstruction of the taxing power, and it contains no judicially enforceable limiting factors, and it provides for an o

today, you're going to be meeting some of the chiefs of fox news like michael clemente, senior vice president, you'll be meeting paul"the wall street journal" and other big shots from "the wall street journal" and smart fellows from "the new york post" as well. what do you aspire to as a journalist? what do you want to be doing five or 10 years from now? and you're doing it great now. five or 10 years from now. >> five or 10 years from now, i hope i'm doing exactly what i'm doing now. honestly, i'd really like to stay either on the military beat or foreign affairs and i enjoy it. i enjoy telling the stories of other people so it's definitely something that i aspire to do, just doing what i do now. just keep writing. >> you're a great example of journalism in america and great example of young americans so we salute you and we thank you for your competence in writing and look forward to your future and have a great lunch today and we look forward to seeing you at the "wall street journal" and maybe a byline. congratulations. >> thank you. >> good to see you. >> uh-huh. >> remember when nancy pelosi had this to say! >