and those finding the rehnquist court limiting are now coming out for federal preemption. so we see a shift in valence. you might notice that the business community is facing an favoring preemption. it is not hard to see why. business would most likely prefer to be regulated by one regulator and the central government than 50 regulators in states, were more likely, but one state that is more restrictive. it is not surprising to see that federal preemption has become an argument favored by the business community and conservative advocates. the case and this trend seems to get that back out. what happens now? victories for states. the states are maine, vermont, and new york. so i would put this set of cases under the heading blue state rights. blue states' rights as opposed to the kind of states' rights that went to the anti-gun control and anti-domestic violence rulings in other cases. starting with the first, a poignant case. a woman who needs both arms as an anti nausea drug injected in her arm that causes complications leading to amputation. a one-armed former violinist

and those finding the rehnquist court limiting are now coming out for federal preemption.we see a shift in valence. you might notice that the business community is facing an favoring preemption. it is not hard to see why. business would most likely prefer to be regulated by one regulator and the central government than 50 regulators in states, were more likely, but one state that is more restrictive. it is not surprising to see that federal preemption has become an argument favored by the business community and conservative advocates. the case and this trend seems to get that back out. what happens now? victories for states. the states are maine, vermont, and new york. so i would put this set of cases under the heading blue state rights. blue states' rights as opposed to the kind of states' rights that went to the anti-gun control and anti-domestic violence rulings in other cases. starting with the first, a poignant case. a woman who needs both arms as an anti nausea drug injected in her arm that causes complications leading to amputation. a one-armed former violinist walk

justice breyer and he said i want the job and want to get going and drove out to chief justice rehnquist's vacation home in vermont and somebody got a bible and that he swore in and they called reporters an hour later and she'll get her chance at the white house next wednesday, a reception in her honor, back to you guys. >> jamie: caroline shivley, live on the steps, thanks so much. and, the supreme court's first full session with sotomayor will begin on october 5th. but, justice sotomayor will take her seat on the court in early september. that is when the justices meet for a rare early hearing. on a case that deals with campaign finance reform. joining me now on the phone, fox news correspondent shannon bream, who covers the supreme court for us, shannon thanks for joining us. i wanted to talk to you today a little bit about some of the key cases that will come up and, they'll come up quickly for the court. what does the justice have to look forward to. >> reporter: you mentioned the one early case we'll hear and it is interesting, it involves hillary clinton and a movie made about her,

before we performed the worldwide rehnquist support services or wiltz contract, the largest port timing w contract ever. by the end of three was providing over 8,000 linguists in iraq supported by 200 employees in the u.s. and 190 employees and theater. l3's began with a transition period at that time we support it a weontinue to support tims thout self-interest. l-3's objectives were to ensure the support of the combatant commanders and their soldiers on theround never wavered. numberwo, that the lingutic not suffer a l o support during the transition and number three, thehia less and the tims perham succeeded. l-value added to the program is undeniable and arises from the ality that the gls wasn't orational company at that time. during the 98 transition per gough, g. alves had to stand up the 600 million-dollar company effectively from scratch that could assume full program responsibility with operations throughout the united states and iraq. to win the contract and meet this challenge, jeal less proposed a novel solution known as the integrated team management approach. under itma th

senator joe biden at the time, and i, wrote to chief justice rehnquist to televise bush vs.gore, president bush won the election by one vote, and i spoke out at the time, and i was a republican, and spoke out at the time about scalia's reference to rep alarm with the most ridiculous thing imaginable. and i wanted -- [applause] i wanted the supreme court televised and rehnquist wrote back and said, no, but they released and audio. on judge sotomayor -- i think i was more effective, more so probably than other democrats -- although i did not want to do my horn to much -- and a wise latino woman. , is there something that you've -- may be a legacy piece of legislation, is there something you had in the back of your head that you did not have support from the republican party that you feel you might initiate now? >> take stem cell research. stem cell research, i have absolutely no support. i was in the back seat of the president's car one day -- there were three of us. bush, -- and made. we had a hell of an argument. the vote was 2-1 against me. and twice we passed stem cell leg

in our june meeting, i asked her whether she agreed with chief justice rehnquist's observation in dirkson v. united states which upheld the famous decision miranda v. arizona. there the chief justice wrote that there are situations where constitutional precedence that a justice might believe had been wrongly decided should be upheld because the people have accepted the principle of the decision as an embedded part of our national culture. judge sotomayor agreed with that decision. in adherence to applying the precedent has achieved significance in many casually contested areas of the law such as the second amendment which brings plea to the concerns raised by judge sotomayor's decision in maloney v. cuomo. mr. president, i happen to be a strong, longtime defender of the second amendment rights, as evidenced by my amicus support for mr. heller in his recent case before the supreme court in district of columbia v. heller. accordingly, i am very well aware that the issue of whether second amendment protections are to be construed as incorporated against acts of a state government as opposed

senator joe biden at the time, and i, wrote to chief justice rehnquist to televise bush vs. gore, president bush won the election by one vote, and i spoke out at the time, and i was a republican, and spoke out at the time about scalia's reference to rep alarm with the most ridiculous thing imaginable. and i wanted -- [applause] i wanted the supreme court televised and rehnquist wrote back and said, no, but they released and audio. on judge sotomayor -- i think i was more effective, more so probably than other democrats -- although i did not want to do my horn to much -- and a wise latino woman. , is there something that you've -- may be a legacy piece of legislation, is there something you had in the back of your head that you did not have support from the republican party that you feel you might initiate now? >> take stem cell research. stem cell research, i have absolutely no support. i was in the back seat of the president's car one day -- there were three of us. bush, -- and made. we had a hell of an argument. the vote was 2-1 against me. and twice we passed stem cell le

i mean, from being a law clerk to justice rehnquist and in my office, to private practice and so on. the notion that he is going to try and kind of reenact some policy memo from 1982 into the constitutional law in supreme court decision making is i think rather far-fetched. and i think if you take that view of chief justice roberts you might also answer your other part of the question, which is do we expect a replay of 1935 in the supreme court, basically to spring for acting the way it did during fdr's legacy. i think that was a tough moment for the court, and i think people who care about the court will be very hesitant to replay something like that. >> mike, i don't know if we got the microphone to work, but we will relay your question. shouted out. >> michael roberts. the courts concerning the northwest, the power of congress section five. it's possible that the court will adopt the line of cases when they do consider that question, which is a fairly rigorous review of congress' power. if they do, isn't there just a big problem for the section to affect test as it is for section

senator joe biden at the time, and i, wrote to chief justice rehnquist to televise bush vs.ore, president bush won the election by one vote, and i spoke out at the time, and i was a republican, and spoke out at the time about scalia's reference to rep alarm with the most ridiculous thing imaginable. and i wanted -- [applause] i wanted the supreme court televised and rehnquist wrote back and said, no, but they released and audio. on judge sotomayor -- i think i was more effective, more so probably than other democrats -- although i did not want to do my horn to much -- and a wise latino woman. , is there something that you've -- may be a legacy piece of legislation, is there something you had in the back of your head that you did not have support from the republican party that you feel you might initiate now? >> take stem cell research. stem cell research, i have absolutely no support. i was in the back seat of the president's car one day -- there were three of us. bush, -- and made. we had a hell of an argument. the vote was 2-1 against me. and twice we passed stem cell legi

chief justice rehnquist handed out an opinion saying that the -- quote -- "method of reasoning" -- close quote -- of the congress was deficient. the dissents on that 35-4 opinion laid out the -- on that 5-4 opinion laid out the vast record which supported the legislation. the supreme court has adopted the standard of judging constitutionality as to whether the statute is proportionate and congruent. the standard which has emerged very recently. it defies understanding to really gaun quantify or figure t what "pr "portion national" and- what "proportionate" and "congruent" means. two cases interpreting the americans with disabilities act went 5-4 in opposite directions. one case holding that article 1 was -- between article 1 and 2, one case holding one of them was constitutional and the other was unconstitutional. justice scalia, i in that litigation characterized "proportionate and congruent" to be a flabby standard which in effect allowed the court to legislate. when chief justice roberts appeared before the judiciary committee in response to questions from senator dewine and myself, h

court, especially, after earl warren leaves, in comes, you know, other chief justices but especially rehnquist, i think he feels that he is shunted off to the left wing of the court with his friend, bill brennan, and that people aren't listening to him and that he's not having the opportunity to really shape the law at that point. that he's just dealing with what he views is a reactionary right wing that is constantly undercutting not only affirmative action and they cut it time and again and all he can do at this point is write dissents and hope they become the basis of future majority opinions when the court changes its composition. >> host: in describing him, you use the word exceptional, an exceptional family growing up in an exceptional place in baltimore. >> guest: oh, without a doubt. what a fascinating history. i mean, for me, you know, steve, what happened was -- i had written "eyes on the prize: america's civil rights years, 1954-1965" and in the course of doing the research for that book, i had come across the idea, wait a minute, there's one historic figure in this book still alive

if the rehnquist court hallmark was states' rights, the roberts court homework -- hallmark, you might say that increased barriers to civil litigation, or an attempt to bring rationality to civil litigation, has been a very important, consistent theme of the roberts court. in that, justice souter has been a consistent ally, is an open question whether justice sotomayor are will be. thank you very much. [applause] >> before you get up to leave, we will entertain a few questions. i would also like to take kathleen sullivan will be here all week with us. you will have a chance to walk right up and ask your own personal question, if you would like. in the interest of time, let's take three questions. if those of you who would like to ask questions will go to the microphone, then i would also like to have you please fill out your evaluation forms, and remember that special task that i am asking. tell us what you would like to hear when we come back to our program in january of 2011. >> you are not obliged, and i know coffee awakes, but is there any thing anyone wants to talk about? >> i thi

two behind justice rehnquist. no law firm in california would hire justice o'connor as an attorney because -- because -- she was a woman. the most one firm would offer her was a position as a legal secretary. when justice ginsburg arrived at harvard law school, she was greeted by a dean who asked why the nine women in her class -- a class of about 700 people, mr. president -- why nine women in her class were occupying seats that could otherwise be taken by men. little did he know she would later join another group of nine legal experts whose membership was long restricted to men, the supreme court of the united states.like justice o'connor, je ginsburg did not receive a single offer with any of the 12 law firms with which she interviewed even though she finished first in her class at harvard. when she was recommended for a clerkship to supreme court, at least two of the justices refused to hire her. why? she was a woman. america's grateful that o'connor and ginsburg didn't give up. we're fortunate that their voice

two behind justice rehnquist. no law firm in california would hire justice o'connor as an attorney because -- because -- she was a woman. the most one firm would offer her was a position as a legal secretary. when justice ginsburg arrived at harvard law school, she was greeted by a dean who asked why the nine women in her class -- a class of about 700 people, mr. president -- why nine women in her class were occupying seats that could otherwise be taken by men. little did he know she would later join another group of nine legal experts whose membership was long restricted to men, the supreme court of the united states.like justice o'connor, je ginsburg did not receive a single offer with any of the 12 law firms with which she interviewed even though she finished first in her class at harvard. when she was recommended for a clerkship to supreme court, at least two of the justices refused to hire her. why? she was a woman. america's grateful that o'connor and ginsburg didn't give up. we're fortunate that their voice

on the court especially after rural warren leaves, in comes other chief justice's but especially rehnquist i think he feels he's shunted to the left wing of the court with his friend bill brennan and that people aren't listening to him and he's not having the opportunity to shape the law at that point, that he's just dealing with what he views as a reactionary white wing constantly undercutting not only affirmative action, undercut with balky and continue to undercut time and again and he thinks all he can do at that point is right this and hope that the dissidents become the basis for future majority opinions when the court changes its composition. >> host: in fact in describing him you use the word exceptional, exceptional family growing up in exceptional place in baltimore. >> guest: what a fascinating history. for me, juneau, steve, what happened i had written on is on the prize, a book about the american civil rights movement, and in the course of doing the research for that book had come across the idea that wait a minute, there is one historic figure in this book still alive, still