seekg asylum, and immigrants seeking asylum, 83 percent of the time -- against the petitioners. not one way or the other. this means with regard to immigration, you are neither more liberal nor a more conservative than your colleagues. you simply did what judge newman said. you apply your best judgment to the record at hand. now, can you discuss your approach to immigration cases? explain to this panel and the american people what flexibility judges have in this context and your use of this flexibility in a very moderate manner? >> reasonable judges look at the same set of facts and may disagree on what those facts should result in. it harkens back to the question of wise men and wise women being judges. reasonable people disagree. that was my understanding of judge newman's comments in the quotation he made. in immigration cases, -- in the quotation you may. in immigration cases, we have reviewed, -- in the quotation he made -- you made. it is an administrative body, and i know that i am being a little in exact, but i think using old terminology is better than using -- a little

the petitioner ins really don't know the value, but they also do believe most of the value is ill-liquid did jackson, the other important question have enough insurance or any insurance to pay the 45% death tax for anything over $3.5 million? we're talking conceivably about a couple hundred million in cash due to the irs, nine months from the date of death. so randy says even if they don't have enough money, they could avoid having to sell important assets like that song catalog if they set up a payment plan with the irs based on incoming new revenue. listen. >> the irs would understand that you don't want to sell -- you don't want to kill the golden goose by having to force its sale, but rather allow serial extensions up to ten years after the date of death so that money machine can crank out the cash that's needed to actually pay off the irs. >> he likens it to the elvis presley situation to which there was a lot of post death management and exploitation that made the estate more valuable. the hope is, of course, that michael jackson did have enough insurance to pay this 45% tax. and i

where the law was, and it may be that they wanted to make statement with respect to the individual petitioners who had been waiting for promotions for six years. >> well, before we go to the audience for some questions, i just want to pick up on a few themes. neal was mentioning earlier the idea that this, that roberts was sort of a pragmatic leader and cobbling together coalitions, and a lot of the analyses after the term -- that the roberts court this year was more incremental or more interested in smaller steps and compromise perhaps. is that a theme that all of you agree with or not? >> i'll jump in. i think i'm not fully on board with that account yet, and part of it is we just don't have enough information yet. in a few more terms we'll have a much fuller picture, when the papers come out, we'll obviously know about what happened this term. but to my eye there's another equally plausible account for a lot of the decisions this term which is that the chief justice is going just as far to the right, and he's going there just as fast as justice kennedy is prepared to go along with him. and

at that point the petitioners in the vermont case sought a rehearing by the entire second circuit arguing that the -- was ground for review. oddly enough the judges on the second circuit including judge sotomayor took a patches they decided to let the supreme court clean up the confusion created when the three-judge panel decided to ignore buckley. traditionally errors like these are precisely the reasons that motions for a rehearing of an entire circuit are designed. according to the federal rules of appellate procedure, a review by the full court of what is damonly referred to as an rehearing is specifically called for where the proceedings call into question questionable importance. what could be more important than following supreme court precedent and protecting and preserving the first amendment, but the second circuit declined. in the end the supreme court corrected the errors of the second circuit in a 6-3 opinion drafted by none other than justice breyer. here's what breyer wrote: we hold that both sets of limitations on contributions and expenditures are inconsistent with the fi

that is against the petitioner seeking asylum. immigrant seeking asylum. 83% of the time. that happens to be the exact statistical median rate for your court. it's not one way or the other. this means that with regard to immigration, you were neither more libinal nor more conservative than your colleagues. you simply did what judge newson said. you applied your best judgment to the record at hand. now can you discuss your approach to immigration cases, explain to this panel and the american people the flexibility that judges have in this context and your use of this flexibility in a very moderate manner? >> reasonable judges look at the same set of facts and may disagree on what those facts should result in. it harkens back to the question of wise men and wise women being judges. reasonable people disagree. that was my understanding of judge newson's comments in the quotation you made. in immigration cases, we have a different level of review because it's not the judge making the decision whether to grant or not grant asylum. it's an administrative body. and i know that i

you have decided inned second circuit, you ruled in favor of the government that is against the petitioner seeking asylum, immigrants seeking asylum, 83% of the time. that happens to be the exact statistical median rate for your court. it's not one way or the other. this means that with regard to immigration, you were neither more liberal nor more conservative than your colleague, you simply did what judge newman said. you applied your best swrumt to the record at hand. now can you discuss your approach to immigration cases, explain to this panel and the american people the flex bill that judges have in this context and your use of this flexibility in a very moderate manner? >> reasonable judges look at the same set of facts and may disagree on what those facts should result in. it harkins back to the question of wise men and wise women being judges. reasonable people disagree. that was my understanding of judge newman's comments in the quotation you made. in immigration cases, we have a different level of review because it's not the judge making the decision whether to grant or not grant

at that point the petitioners in the vermont case sought a rehearing by the entire second circuit arguing that the -- was ground for review. oddly enough the judges on the second circuit including judge sotomayor took a patches they decided to let the supreme court clean up the confusion created when the three-judge panel decided to ignore buckley. traditionally errors like these are precisely the reasons that motions for a rehearing of an entire circuit are designed. according to the federal rules of appellate procedure, a review by the full court of what is damonly referred to as an rehearing is specifically called for where the proceedings call into question questionable importance. what could be more important than following supreme court precedent and protecting and preserving the first amendment, but the second circuit declined. in the end the supreme court corrected the errors of the second circuit in a 6-3 opinion drafted by none other than justice breyer. here's what breyer wrote: we hold that both sets of limitations on contributions and expenditures are inconsistent with the fi

where the law was coming and it may be wanted to make a statement with respect to the individual petitioners who had been waiting for promotions for six years. >> well, before we go to the audience for some questions, to pick up on a few things neil was mentioning earlier. the idea that roberts was a sort of pragmatic leader in cobbling together coalitions, and a lot of the analysis after the term that the roberts corporation this year was more incremental and more interested in smaller steps and compromise perhaps. is that the theme all of you agree with or not? >> i will jump in. i think i am not fully on board with that account yet and part of it is we don't have enough information and a few more terms we will have a full picture when the papers come out we will obviously know more about what happened. but to my eye there's another equally plausible account for a lot of decisions which is that the chief justice is going just as far to the right and he's going there just as fast as justice kennedy is prepared to go along with him. and at least to my mind it seems at least fairly clear in s

maybe that they wanted to make a statement with respect to the individual petitioners who had been waitingr six years. >> well, before we go to the audience for some questions, i just want to pick up on a few things. neal was mentioning earlier the idea that this -- that roberts was sort of a pragmatic leader and calling together coalitions. a lot of the analyses after the term, more that the roberts court this year was more incremental and more interested in smaller steps and compromise, perhaps. is that a theme that all of you agree with or not? >> i'll jump in. i think i'm not fully onboard with that account yet. part of it is, we just don't have enough information yet. in a few more terms, we'll have a much fuller picture. when the papers come out, we'll obviously know a lot more about what really happened this term. to my eye, there's another equally plausible account for a lot of the decisions this term, which is that the chief justice is going just as far to the right and he's going there just as fast as justice kennedy is prepared to go along with them. and at least to my mind, it

for example, one beneficiary who was invited into the country by a petitioner, was invited to work at a religious institution and they checked and the institution didn't exist and the petitioner filed a number of other petitions bringing in other people. another one dealt with a paper church, a church that didn't exist, and the addresses and all that were given were not legitimate. another one, age 33, the petition, the person who filed the petition to bring in this foreign worker couldn't be located and there could be no connection between the person who petitioned and the group they claimed to be petitioning for. so it appears that this individual petitioned for another individual to come and work at a school or a church and the school and church they said they were going to work at didn't even know this was happening and, of course, when the person came in they were, therefore, able to enter the country illegal and they never work at a church. and several more like that. another one, the signer of the petition was no longer at the school and the school board members interviewed sai