and then the respondent get an up and tries to piquet holes in the argument that was made by the petitioner. >> it is as you are giving are not usually wonderful sound bites. they are designed -- it is a much more scholarly exercise. it is designed to, based on the president of the case, to bring all those materials the bear in a concise and persuasive way and to do it in a small amount of time. you have to be well prepared if you are on to do well. you have to know more case backwards and forwards. you better know it better than anyone in the courtroom. you have to be able to recall anything critically and be able to weave it into the narrative of. it is challenging. they are all relieved. america should be enormously proud of the courts. the supreme court is excellent care if it is challenging to arm at the level and meet their expectations. >> i do not think so, your honor. >> you have it that some number. does this not being a quota because it is somewhere between 8% and club%, but it is a quota if it is 10%? >> what can somebody tell me in a half an hour. it is quite rare the oral argu

of setting out that argument but also trying to poke holes in the argument that was made by the petitioner. >> it is not made for tv, so that answers your giving work usually not wonderful sound bites that the press would love to report and an audience would like to cheer over. it is a much more scholarly exercise than what we typically see on television. it is designed to persuade them, based on the facts in the record of the case and the language of the statute, to bring those materials to bear in a concise and persuasive way, and to do it in a very small amount of time. you have to be extremely well prepared if you are going to do well. you have to know your case backwards and forwards, better than anyone in the court room. you have to be able to recall it very quickly and we've been into a narrative that you are giving to the court while responding to other questions. it is very challenging. they are all brilliant. americans should be enormously proud of their court. the supreme court is excellent, all the way across the bench. it is very challenging for advocates to essentially argued

it was signed by petitioners. it was signed by journalists. it was a diverse group. and now, more than a year later, despite almost a year of chinese police, security forces, and the whole machinery intimidating, detaining, questioning individuals who did sign it, you actually now have over 10,000 signatures, so what the significance of it is is, despite the intimidation and the detention and the 11-year sentence, individuals in china continue, and will continue, to demand the kinds of democratic reforms. you now have over 450 individuals have signed an online petition who have said, "we claim collective responsibility. we signed charter'08, and if liu xiaobarks bao is guilty we are guilty for signing," in fact the intimidation tactics are not working to silence the chinese people. >> warner: doug paul, if so many people signed this and he had so many co-authors, why did they go after him in particular? how important a figure is he? >> he's the key intellectual sparkplug for this movement. he's a proven hero of the movement because he went to prison after coming back

the second prong of the court's commerce clause analysis requires a determination that a petitioner has, in fact, engaged in the regulated activity, making him or her a member of the regulated class. in its modern commerce clause cases, the supreme court rejects the argument that a petitioner's own conduct or participation in the activity is, by itself, either too local or trivial to have a substantial affect on interstate commerce. rather, the court has made clear that, where the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power to excise as trivial individual instances of the class. thus, for example, a potential challenger of the proposed mandate could not argue that, because his -- her own decision to purchase the required insurance would have little or no effect on the broader market, the regulation could not be constitutionally applied to her. the court will consider the affect of the relevant class of activity, not that of any individual member of the class 78 --class. so to asset the constitutionality of the claim of p

of setting out that argument but also trying to poke holes in the argument that was made by the petitioner. >> it is not made for tv, so that answers your giving work usually not wonderful sound bites that the press would love to report and an audience would like to cheer over. it is a much more scholarly see on television. it is designed to persuade them, based on the facts in the record of the case and the language of the statute, to bring those materials to bear in a concise and persuasive way, and to do it in a very small amount of time. you have to be extremely well prepared if you are going to do well. you have to know your case backwards and forwards, better than anyone in the court room. you have to be able to recall it very quickly and we've been into a narrative that you are giving to the court while responding to other questions. it is very challenging. they are all brilliant. americans should be enormously proud of their court. the supreme court is excellent, all the way across the bench. it is very challenging for advocates to essentially argued at that level and meet their ex

marketer who promises, or, these dieters are great prospects for all tightwads and other health petitionerproduct. these away watching consumers will try anything in the hopes of being healthy. so these are only two examples of niche marketing categories available today on the internet. there are thousands of similar categories available. it easy to raise questions about niche marketing. but are there benefits to niche marking lists? don't people suffering from illnesses benefit from getting information relevant to them? susan, why isn't this a great thing? [laughter] >> well, this is not a new concern. this concern has long existed with the telemarketing and e-mail marketing. i think that the internet heightens the concern because of the increased stability to gather and segment information about consumers. and it's information that consumers are not knowingly providing for that purpose. they are usually providing it for another purpose entirely. and as you point out, it can be used to take a vantage of extremely vulnerable consumers. in our view, there's some categories of information su