. >> then you disagree with chief justice rehnquist. >> i think that it's -- that it's very important for the courts to defer to congressional fact-finding, understanding that the courts have no and the to do fact-finding, are not -- would not legitimately, could not legitimately do fact-finding. >> well, i know all of that, but what do you think of our method of reasoning? >> as i -- as i saidarlier, senator specter, i have enormous respect for the legislative process, and part that have respect comes from working in the white house and working with congress on a great many pieces of legislation. >> i'm going to move on to my next question. justice scalia attacked the stan dand of congruence and proportionality saying that this court is acting as congress' task master. the court is checking on congressional homework to make sure that it is identified sufficient constitutional violations to make its remedy constitutnal and proportional. i've picked out three instances. citizens united where justice stevens says great disrespect nd the attack by rehnquist on our method of reasoning and

rehnquist has not yet been added. in a sense, you're walking through the entire histooy of the court. >> the story of the court is defined not only by its achievements over time but also through continuing editions of the sessa justices to the bench. >> the white house operator tells you that the president is on the line. i have my cell phone in my right hand. i have my left hand over my chest. i'm trying to calm my beating heart. the president got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court." and i said to him, "-- i caught my breath and started to cry. president." >> judge sotomayor, are you prepared to take the oath? please raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, a seminar, do solemnly swear -- i, sonia sotomayor work, do solemnly swear. >> justice white what said win wwen the court gets a new its seeds by in order of seniorrty so there will be a shift there. fundamentally, it can cause you to look at how things are decided, the new

the bust of chief justice rehnquist has not yet been added. in a century, one thing sg true, the oral history of the court. >> the ssory of the court was designed not only by its chiefs overtime but also with the addition of new associate justices to the bench. >> the white house operator tells you that the president is on the line. i have any cell phone in my ripet hand and i had my left hand over my chest trying to calm my beating heart literally. and the president got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the uniied states supreme court. and i said to him, -- i caught and i said, "thank you, mr. , %- president." >> judge sotomayor, are you ready to take the oath? >> i am. >> raiseeyour hand and repeat after me. >> justice white always used to say when the court gets a new member, it changes everything, it changes everybody. i think it causes them to take a fresh look at how things are decided. a new member will have a particular view about how issues should be ad

i know chief justice rehnquist used to love to go to the grocery store and not be recognized. given the security issues today, those things are significant. i do not know. i am certainly not going to object if they want to have it. you could be a movie star, right? >> but i am very sympathetic, at least to the justices who do not want it. >> i think it is a matter of constitutional law, and i think the court has got it wrong. in the richmond newspapers case in 1980, the supreme court said that the process of justice is an open process. actually, they said that as long ago as craig versus party in 1940. it ought to be an open process. for the court to pick and choose between the media -- the forms of media that undertake to cover the proceedings -- seems to me to be engaging in what is a form of first-amendment discrimination. my colleague, pete williams, from nbc, would be a wonderful person to be standing outside the courtroom and narrating a film about the oral argument, because he understands the court. i frankly am never persuaded by the argument that the court is so fragi

. >> larry: stephanie, william rehnquist was chief justice and was never a judge and he was a presidential assistant. >> someone just an upper east side liberal as of friday and just moved back to l.a., she's a centrist. for many on the left, she's not a liberal justice. she shouldn't replace who she's replacing. this court has skewed very much to the right particularly with the citizens united ruling and i love the fact that it is snooty to have a harvard degree. they all have a harvard degree. of course she has a harvard degree. >> larry: aren't all the democrats going to vote for her? >> i would hope so. >> larry: are you concerned about dana pointing out this non-paper trail. >> i'm thrilled to pieces to agree with james completely. there shouldn't even be confirmation hearings. it's a new thing just created for television. most of the justices we have had never had confirmation hearings. i disagree with her on a lot of stuff. i don't like how weak she is on freedom of speech and has given speeches about how the government can do work around on freedom of speech. i disagree with her on

when i was here in 1995, it was equally an honor to serve william rehnquist.my mentor, henry abraham, is here this evening. he taught me everything i know about judicial appointment. his book, now in its fifth edition, is the definitive work on supreme court nominations. i would also like to thank jennifer low and my longtime friends and students and colleagues who have come here this evening, many came all the way from sweet briar college, particularly our dean at jonathan green. somm of you may have heard about a speech givvn across the street t which our resident of a large white house inadvertently advertise the theme of the historical society's 2010 lecture series by announcing his respect for separation of powers. i must admit that the theory behind it separating government powers tends to make my students' eyes glaze over. evening, of course. no wonder a poll conducted years ago revealed that many americans identified the three branches of government as -- republicans, democrats, and independents. i was serving on the advisory committee on public educat

the reality of the workplace -- >> it is rather interesting that the present court, both the rehnquist court and the robert court, -- roberts court, seemed unaware of the concept of statutory construction, when you are interpreting remedial legislation, you did it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction -- give it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction, so that the objective of the legislation can be achieved. you see that in the 1960's and 1970's. now, you only see reference to that language in dissents. that is a cardinal principle that has been around for more than 100 years. >> let me turn to john hiatt. the court's recent record on labor law cases is somewhat mixed. am i right in thinking that the push back against the ledbetter decision and congress is very surprisingly rapid overturning of that -- congress's very surprisingly rapid overturning of that sent some kind of signal to the court? what is your take on the way this court has been interpreting these cases? >> i wish i could say that i thought the reaction to the ledbetter case had been a wake- up call to the

in 1988 and also brings varying perspectives because she served as a clerk to the justice william rehnquistand served as a time as deputy solicitor general. thanks for being here. as our panelists take their seats, i would like to do this. the book is edited transcripts of the interviews that we have recorded. we have picked a number of them tonight so that you can continue to hear the justices in their own words. first, we're going to start with the big news, which is the new appointment of elena kagan. what is interesting is that the court was on an 11-year stretch with those changes what -- with no changes. since 2005, there are new appointments to the court. each of the justices talk to us about the dynamics on the court and how it changes when a new member joins. let's listen. >> to some extent, it is unsettling. you quickly get to view the court as the court, as composed of these members, and it becomes hard to think of it as involving anyone else. i suspect it is the way people think of their families. how could it be different -- different? but you do get new arrivals in both of tho

william douglas, robert jackson, byron white, loss powell, harland fish stone, earl warren and william rehnquist all became justices without ever being previously judges and they certainly led to distinguished careers on the supreme court. as justice frankfurter, someone who knows wrote just to experience in 1957 and i quote, can one is entitled to say without qualification that the correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the function of the supreme court is zero. ." we've all now had the opportunity to review your extensive record as a lawyer, policy adviser and administrator throughout your career. you have consistently demonstrated the all too rare combination of first rate intellect and intensely pragmatic approach to identifying and solving problems. last summer, during then judge sotomayor's confirmation hearings, i focused on the current court's handling of business cases as a number of folks have talked about today. i am convinced by education, experience, and inclin nation that the integrity of our capital markets, u.s. capital markets along with our democratic tra

they've been very frustrated -- actually, i think it starts with the rehnquist court. they've been frustrated by rulings, particularly the recent citizens united campaign finance ruling that struck down part of the campaign finance reform law. they've been frustrated when the court strikes down laws such as the violence against womens's act, the brady background gun check act. they feel that the curt ignores congressional findings , and it is the roberts court in particular that they feel is the conservatives on the roberts court who they believe have been very activist , particularly recently. >> woodruff: marcia coyle, the marshall law journal, thank you for today and your work over the past three days. >> it's been fun. >> woodruff: it has. >> thanks, judy. >> brown: now, back to the gulf for a look at how scientists are tracking the oil spill's impact. the government announced today it's working with university labs to deploy advanced sensor technology to study what's happening in the water. one of those centers is based in st. petersburg, florida. newshour corresp

. >> then you disagree with chief justice rehnquist. >> i think that it's -- that it's very important for the urts to defer to congressional fact-finding, understanding that the courts have no and the to do fact-finding, are not -- would not legimately, could not legitimately do fact-findin >> well, i know all of that, but what do you think of our method of reasoning? >> as i -- as i said earlier, senator specter, i have enormous respect for the legislative process, and part that have respect comes from working in the white house and working with congress on a great many pieces of legislation. >> i'm going to move on to my next question. justice scalia attacked the stan dand of congruence and proportionality saying that this court is acting as congress' task master. the court ishecking on congressional homework to make sure that it is identified sufficient constitutional violations to make its remedy constitutional and proportional. i've picked out three instances. citizens united where justice stevens says great disrespect and the attack by rehnquist on our method of reasoning and sc

directly to the supreme court not from a judgeship but from the administration was when justice rehnquist was working for the nixon administration and went directly to the supreme court. and then i was in dissent at that time. but i was there when he was being nominated for chief justice. i asked him to recuse himself from a case called laird versus tatum. now the laird case involved the nixon administration surveillance of americans. as the justice department's legal expert, when he's working with the justice department for the nixon administration, he testified before congress about that case. but then after his confirmation, he was probably five justice majority in the very case in which he had testified. and he voted to dismiss the complaint alleging unlawful surveillance of lawful citizens' political activity. now our supreme court justices have to make up their own mind back and forth with justice scalia about some things in his relationship with the former vice president and ruling on cases involving him. i regularly ask questions of nominees, not just for the supreme court, but fu

and they mean actual practice of law, like former justices rehnquist and powell. nott only is ms. kagan's background unusual for a supreme court nominee, it's not clear how it demonstrates that she has in the president's words "a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the american people." one recent article noted that her experience draws from a world whose sign posts are distant from most americans. manhattan's upper west side, princeton university, harvard law school, and the upper reaches of the democratic leg establishment. her career in academia tells us relatively little about her views on legal issues. in 14 years as a professor, she published only nine articles. and her tenure in the academy was marred in my view by her decision to punish the military and would be recruits for a policy don't ask don't tell and the solomon amendment enacted by members of congress and signed into law by president clinton. despite this relatively thin paper trail, there are warning signs that she may be exactly the results-oriented justice president obama is looking for

rehnquist says it is impossible to think that after 9/11 a high government official with the frightened by the invasion of american soil might have used race as one of the bases for swigging people up? to that i have only one word to say -- i know what were you think i am going to say. [laughter] that is not the word i am going to say. duran believed in it? i have seen it done. if we had judges like you did you clemens -- like u. w. clemons, that's one thing. how the plausibility will be determined will be very different. we have people who do not3 because it has never happened to them. it is critical to having the constitution and forest and having respect for congress that the dentist who enforce the constitution understand what the constitution means and be prepared to defer to congress when appropriate and to overturn congress or state legislatures were inappropriate. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> can i just say one other thing? this is about commerce. i have to say how privileged and delighted i am to be here. the first case i've ever worked on was a case that was u. w.'s.

the reality of the workplace -- >> it is rather interesting that the present court, both the rehnquist court and the robert court, -- roberts court, seemed unaware of the concept of statutory construction, when you are interpreting remedial legislation, you did it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction -- give it a broad meaning, a broad liberal construction, so that the objective of the legislation can be achieved. you see that in the 1960's and 1970's. now, you only see reference to that language in dissents. that is a cardinal principle that has been around for more than 100 years. >> let me turn to john hiatt. the court's recent record on labor law cases is somewhat mixed. am i right in thinking that the push back against the ledbetter decision and congress is very surprisingly rapid overturning of that -- congress's very surprisingly rapid overturning of that sent some kind of signal to the court? what is your take on the way this court has been interpreting these cases? >> i wish i could say that i thought the reactioto the ledbetter case had been a wake- up call to the su

when i appeared in the court in 1994, it was an honor to serve with chief justice rehnquist. my mentor is here thii evening. he taught me everything i know about judicial appointments. his book is now in its fifth edition. it is the definitive work on supreme court nomination. i would like to thank my long time friends and students who have come here this evening. many came all the way from sweetbrier. some of you may have heard about a recent speech given across the street in which a resident of a large white house at the opposite end of pennsylvaniaa avenue inadvertently advertise the theme of our lecture series by announcing his separation of powers between the branches of the government. i must admit that the theory tends to make my students eyes glaze over. no wonder that a poll conducted several years ago revealed that many americans identified the three branches of government as follows, republicans, democrats, and independence. at the time of the survey, i served on an advisory committee and was grateful that the president had chosen separation of powers as the focus

this democratic colleague identified justices byron white, william rehnquist and lewis powell as among those with no prior judicial experience. these justices practiced respectively for 14, 16, 37 and 39 years in the practice of law. and justice powell had also been president of the american bar association. there really is no comparison. so in this first element of legal experience, we have to be honest about what the record shows. unlike other supreme court nominees, ms. kagan has no judicial experience and virtually no legal practice experience. that leaves her academic and political experience. the democratic senator i mentioned identified as among ms. kagan's strongest qualifications for the supreme court, her experience crafting policy and her ability to build consensus. judges, however, are not supposed to be crafting policy and consensus building only begs the question of what a consensus is being built to support. it's relatively light record of legal experience only places more importance on judicial philosophy and other qualification for judicial service. frankly, finding re