i, sonia sotomayor, do solemnly swear -- >> i, sonia sotomayor, do solemnly swear -- >> when the court gets a new member, it changes everything, everybody. simple changes. we move the seats around in the court room by seniority. there will be a shift there. but more fundamentally, it can cause it to take a fresh look at how things are defined. -- it can cause you to take a fresh look at how things are decided. the new member will have a particular view about how things should be addressed, and it may be very different from what we have been following for some time. it is an exciting part of life at the court. >> the institution does not change at all. i think the relationships change. you lose a friend and hopefully acquire another one. i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court, from blackmun, white, to bill brennan. -- byron white to bill brennan. but that is the process. >> it is different today than when it was when i first got here. i have to admit -- you grow very fond of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there when chief justice rehnquist and jus

>> absolutely not, justice sotomayor. i do not think reynolds says that if the government is the moving party it is an automatic loss. there's no reason whatsoever -- >> let's talk about moving party. i do not know that moving party means who comes into the court first. in the context of a contract dispute, i would say the moving party is the party who is trying to use principles of law to change the contract. that is the government here. the government is blowing the whistle. the government is saying you are in default. since you are in default, we can walk away and we can claim the money we have party paid. that seems the moving party. >> it is important to add to your definition -- using legal principles in a federal court. that is what reynolds is talking about. >> that was the situation in reynolds. i am saying that illogic of the matter, when applied to a contract situation -- that the logic of the matter, when applied to a contract situation, ought to be the one that is asserting that the law requires this results.

this goes back to what justice sotomayor was saying. you don't need probable cause to knock on the door. it's perfectly lawful. the knock is fine. then when you hear whatever it is that you hear that you think creates exigent circumstances, whether it's toilet flushing, or whether it's just noise, that too, gives you the ability to go right in. so if it's just lawfulness, you don't need the marijuana smell even do you? >> i think we are confused. in order to enter with exigent circumstances, you must also have separate probable cause. >> probable cause beyond thinking? >> beyond reasonable of the police -- >> right. okay. >> yes, that is correct. >> it might just be somebody going to the toilet. >> it could be. >> so you have to suspect the reason the toilet is flushing somebody is trying to get rid of evidence. in order for that to be the case, you have to smell the marijuana. >> yes, justice scalia. >> so there's only one probable cause; right? >> yes. the exigent circumstances is a reasonable belief based upon the totality of the sur

---la jueza del tribunal supremo de justicia, "sonia sotomayor", vendra a la universidad de californiade la corte suprema de california y un magistrado del noveno tribunal federal de apelaciones eligira al ganador de un concurso anual que se celebra en la escuela de leyes.---el 2 de febrero, los 2 finalistas del concurso presentaran sus argumentos en el juicio entablado contra una escuela publica donde, bajo la ley que separa la iglesia del estado, prohibieron que una madre leyera fragmentos de la biblia en el salon de su hijo.---este ejercicio legal en torno a la libertad de expresion sera una leccion unica para los futuros abogados.

sonia sotomayor will be the chief judge hearing the final round of arguments at the competition. she will be joined by judge fletcher, who teaches a class at the school. sotomayor became the court's first hispanic judge when appointed in 2009. >>> lawrence scott here with the sports and the warriors have the nba champs. >> they sure do, but there's a bug going around. how ellis is trying to get ready to play tonight. a>>>nd aia gsn television. got to hear about this one coming up next in sports. >>> another first for san francisco. it has the world's first museum dedicated to the gay open. >> reporter: a walk through the castro district is a walk through the history of the gay movement. the castro theatre. still, it wasn't quite enough. >> in the queer community as in many communities that have been marginalized, there's a deep thirst for history. the former laundromat has transformed into a museum. >> we have the second stand alone, full scale museum on earth. >> it was founded by the glbt's historical society. >> and so, individuals have kept these materials and looked for a pl

in here you will find beautiful pieces about ruth pagan's guard and sonia sotomayor neither of whom would be on the supreme court did they were not for daniel patrick moynihan. when you look at his career you think about the highlights, you will be reading an opinion of sonia sotomayor ten years from now that is in a sense a moynihan achievement. there are very few senators who play the long game. i want to make one note about infrastructure. because reporters can only drop one, senator moynihan's junior colleagues during this time was labeled -- if you had a pothole on your street you could get that fixed which the senate has nothing to do with pot holes but we get the idea. just about no one in the new york media knew that there was a senator pothole that is all good and well but there were also senator trueway. new york state in so many ways of being smarter than the country in so many things. and the highway system before president eisenhower got the idea for the interstate highway system. new york state made the mistake of building a throughway before there was federal money for it.

in here you will find beautiful pieces about ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor. neither of whom would be on the supreme court today were it not for daniel patrick moynihan. so when you look at his career and you think about the highlights, you'll be reading an opinion of justice sotomayor 10 years from now that is in a sense a moynihan achievement. there are very few senators who play the long game. i just want to do one, make one note about infrastructure. because reporters can only grapple with one thing, senator moynihan was a junior colleague, was labeled senator pothole because the thought thing you had a bottle on the street, he could get that fixed. which, of course, was a policy. that's it has nothing to do with potholes but we get the idea. just about no one in the news media knew was that there was, if it was a senator pothole, that's all good and well, but there was also senator thruway. new york state, as in so many ways, being smarter than the country in so many things, started what was to become the interstate highway system before president eisenho

so we're not asking, justice sotomayor, for any judicial decision at all. we know what the court doesn't state secrets cases, to say out entirely, to deny the case on the merits. if you do what mr. phillips said it or if you do with justice scalia suggested, the compromise option, that is using the power of the federal court, granting him relief on a claim that he has not proven. that is something i see zero precedent for. >> we're leaving you where you are, we're saying get out of here. we don't know what the answer risk. the view where you war. b>> we have no problem with a go away rule. if he returned to the status quo, we would have the $1.35 billion. that is what the contract says, that is their own filing. before the court of federal claims called the up $1.35 billion money presently due and owing. >> that assumes that the termination for default was valid, and we don't know what was that, and we don't want to have to require whether it was valid. to say go away means everybody keeps the money he has at. >> justice scalia, that is using the power of t

his colleague, lei chel -- rachel mad dow, had canned him on her show to discuss sonia sotomayor.warming instantly to the topic, buchanan indignantly denounced the suffering of white males in america as if he could physically whack the whole idea of affirmative action to bits. he was sort of going like this. he admonished maddow chiding, you never look at these guys who are working class guys with their own dreams just like sonia sotomayor. >> the much-younger maddow dismissed his reproached and reply with the a half smile, you're living in the 1950s, pat. but maddow was wrong because there was no affirmative action to speak of the 1950s, and the notion that white people suffered from are reverse -- from reverse discrimination did not become popular until the '70s. right-wing stars like rush limbaugh and glenn beck have accused of racism against white people. a few days later, i wrote a blog post about a lawsuit over the national motto of the united states, in god we trust. during my research for the article, i learned that the doctrine of the separation of church and state is rea

him onto her liberal news and opinion show to discuss a supreme court nomination of judge sonia sotomayor but the debate quickly shifted to affirmative action, where it instantly to the topic, you can did in the late announced the tragic suffering of white males in america, with the late job enhance the beer it can physically what the whole idea to bed. he was sort of going like this. he admires matteau and her friends up there in new york shouting you never look at these guys were working class guys with own dreams, just like sonia sotomayor appeared much younger rachel matteau seemed amused by buchanan's tirade. she dismissed approaches and replied with a half smile, you're living in the 1950s, pat. but matteau was wrong. for there was no affirmative-action to speak of in the 1950s and the notion why people suffered from reverse discrimination did not become popular until the late 1970s. moreover, because rhetoric about why big dems have become all to common since the election of president obama, white range by glenn beck have accused racism against white people. a few days after mattea

comunidad, el presidente de los estados unidos ya como hemos visto ha entrado y aquí vemos a sonia sotomayoramos viendo como siempre vemos en estos discursos unidad por lo menos en cuanto a visuales verdad pero hay divisiones muy grandes entre ambos partidos políticos. >> sin duda josé, aún en lo visual hay se suponía no he visto el detalle que tres magos entrados no iban a asistir que son conservador, y en términos reales no son lo que como tu dices hay un nuevo congreso y nueva arquitectura política en la cual una de las cámaras está dominada por republicanos y en cada detalle de lo que se va a ver desde la entrada venía las figuras republicanoas uno en el congreso y otro en el senado detrás del presidente, decir hay un nuevo mapa político, que creo que se va a dejar ver en el discurso, el presidente va a reflejar esta realidad política. >> carlos rajo vamos a hablar más adelante aquí el presidente ya va a comenzarlo discurso por cierto todo el gabinete está ahí, con excepción de una persona. tiene que haber un miembro del gobierno fuera del lugar, cuando está el presidente. pero hoy le to

>> oh, absolutely not, justicelo sotomayor.i don't think reynolds says that if government is the moving party, it's an automatic loss. i think that's a back-up argument that we have advanced e in our brief that i think therep is no reasonar whatsoever for the -- >> let's talk about moving party. i don't, i don't know that moving party means who comeson' into court first. i would, i would -- in the context of a contract dispute i would say the moving party isf the party who is trying to uses principles of law to change the contract. and that's the government here. the government, the government is blowing the whistle. it is the government which is saying you are in default, and under the law since you're in e default, we can walk away. and, indeed, we can claim the money we've already paid.aid. that seems to me the moving party in the context of a contract. >> justice scalia, i think it's important to add to your definition using legal principles in a federal court. because that's, i think, what p reynolds is talking about. ther

trading the that you never look at these guys were working class with their own dreams just like sonya sotomayor. much younger rachel matthau seemed amused and dismiss the approach and replied your living in the 1950's. but she was wrong to restore affirmative-action to speak up and the notion that white people suffer from reversed discrimination doesn't become popular until the late '70s and more over the rhetoric about victims becomes all too common sense election of president obama from glenn beck has been accused of racism against white people. a few dies after i wrote a blog post a national model of the united states in god we trust in during my research i learned the separation of church and state is a scammed to go against christians were suffering from greater depression and then my mails. rush limbaugh explains the details in his 2004 book persecution how liberals wage war against christians. perhaps former representative hostetler gin said read it when thought to curb profits rising in the air force academy in 2005 he accused democrats of demonizing christians and fought for the long w

she joins justice sotomayor. and justice ginsburg has served on the court since 1993. there is one item of history that i would like to mention. this month marks the 70th anniversary of the supreme court building. most of you have seen pictures of our building or have had a chance to visit it. it is a beautiful house in the opposite the capitol in washington, d.c. the court did not convene there until 1990 -- until 1935 when the institution was 100 years old. before that, the court always thought the short end of the stick when it came to government housing. the court's first home was in new york city. the first congress occupied federal call while the supreme court took up residence on the supreme court -- took up residence in the second floor of the merchant exchange building. the court's first home was about a shopping mall. when the capital moved to philadelphia, congress was given orders for its own use. the court shared space. when there was a conflict, it was the supreme court that got the bump. when the government moved to washington, congress provided the whit

so we are not asking, justice sotomayor, for any affirmative judicial review at all. we want the court as it does state secret cases such as tenet, to stay out entirely to say deny an audience of this case on the merits. if you do it mr. phillips says, or if you do what justice scalia suggested, the type of compromise option, that is affirmatively using the power of the federal court granting him relief on the claim that he has not proven. that is something i see zero precedent for. >> we are leaving you where you are. get out of here is what we're saying. >> justice scalia in -- >> we don't know what the answer is so go away. we lead you where you are. [laughter] >> we have no problem with a go away rule. and if you did and she returned to the status quo auntie, we would have at $1.35 billion. that's what the contract says. that is what their own filing in september 16, 1991 said before the court of federal claims when they call that $1.35 billion quote money presently due and owing. >> to contracting officers determination for default was valid. and we don't know th

supreme court justice sonia sotomayor will preside over the law school's moot court.he will hear arguments on february 2nd and she's going to have a pretty impressive panel of judges with her. she will be joined by judge william fletcher from the ninth circuit court of appeals and associate justice carol corrigan from the state supreme court. so pretty high-ranking judges. >>> an overnight earthquake has people talking around the bay area. did you feel it? we've got details coming up in a live report. >>> and what's your sign? before you answer, stick around, because you'll have to find out why you may need to change your answer coming up next. >>> you would put me right after that. what is your sign? post it on my facebook, i'm curious. we're looking good this morning, much warmer than it has been. i've got good news. if you've been cold, a warming trend starts today for the bay area. we've got your numbers coming up. >>> reporting what matters to you, you're watching "today in the bay" with laura garcia-cannon, brent cannon, weather with christina loren, and traffic

same thing as it means in exemption 7(c), but because -- precisely for the reason you said, justice sotomayor -- the personnel, medical, and similar files limits the likely scope of that privacy interest to individual, natural -natural persons. and that's simply not because of the words "personal privacy," but because of the company that those words keep in that -- in that particular exemption. >> why? i mean, if you're saying that personal privacy has some overlap with individual privacy -- obviously, it has to if you're going to give meaning to personal privacy -- don't we have to give meaning to "and similar files"? and so what would those be? >> well, your honor, as this court said in the washington post case, the understanding of similar files is defined by the two benchmarks that are expressly provided, right? personnel and medical. so the kinds of files are limited to the sorts of files in which individual information is likely to be contained. in that case, it was a passport file. again, our -- our argument is simply that it is that part of exemption 6 that does the limited work in te

be chief justice roberts, justice kennedy, and the democratic appointees, justice ginsburg, sonia sotomayor, and the new justice elena kagan. >> one of those was the death of a federal judge. i am wondering how that affects the interest of the court in attending tonight. >> we do not know for sure why the chief justice, for example, decided to come when he had been critical of political nature of the state of the union address last year. he implied that he would not come. it could be one of the factors of leading him to come tonight. it is to show the solidarity with the judiciary. as you say, he was very much respected. it may be that he wanted to come to pay tribute to in a silent way to the judge. >> thank you very much. it will be watching as members of the court make their way into the chamber. it is interesting to see who comes and it tore predictions are correct. thank you for your additional bought from. >> let's return to capitol hill. we just have learned that the missing cabinet member will be interior secretary salazar. why is there so much interest in who is not in the chamber

. >> justice sotomayor, are you ready to take the oath? repeat after me.o solemnly swear -- >> when the court gets a new member, it changes everything, everybody. we moved the seats around in the court room by warner of seniority. there will be a shift there. but more fundamentally, it can cause it to take a fresh look at how things are defined. the new member will have a particular view about his you should be addressed, and it may be very different from what we have been falling for some time. it is an exciting part of life at the court. in the institution does not change it all. i think the relationships change. you lose a friend and hopefully acquire another one. i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court, from black and white to bill brennan. but that is the process. >> it is different today than when it was when i first got here. i have to admit -- you grow very fond of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there when chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor, we have a long run together. you get comfortable with that

so we're not asking, justice sotomayor, for any judicial decision at all. we know what the court doesn't state secrets cases, to say out entirely, to deny the case on the merits. if you do what mr. phillips said it or if you do with justice scalia suggested, the compromise option, that is using the power of the federal court, granting him relief on a claim that he has not proven. that is something i see zero precedent for. >> we're leaving you where you are, we're saying get out of here. we don't know what the answer risk. the view where you war. b>> we have no problem with a go away rule. if he returned to the status quo, we would have the $1.35 billion. that is what the contract says, that is their own filing. before the court of federal claims called the up $1.35 billion money presently due and owing. >> that assumes that the termination for default was valid, and we don't know what was that, and we don't want to have to require whether it was valid. to say go away means everybody keeps the money he has at. >> justice scalia, that is using the power of t

sotomayor and kate and were more sympathetic. -- and elena kagan were more sympathetic. they seemed to be more inclined to see things from kiong's perspective. it is hard to tell from the questions of the oral argument. many times, justices will play devil's advocate to explore the strength and weaknesses of both sides. you cannot tell from my specific question all the time. host: new york, thank you for waiting, on our independent line. caller: good morning. i have a quick comment and then a question. i live in new york fed seems there are two types of justice systems in new york. in the city and the state of new york, if you are a black person, the system treats you bear -- differently. if you are caucasian, they treat you differently. in 1986, there is a case where a reasonably educated lady was our raped and beaten and there was tremendous pressure on the police to find the suspect. they went down to harlem and grabbed five young man. they made up stories on them. all of those young men were freed from jail but of the damage had been done. maybe a man's home is his c

justice sotomayor has been very active in her questioning.ost recently, they filed separate decisions about capital defense, insisting the court review capital cases, which puts them at odds with justice alito. justice keychain has not been sitting on many cases because of her involvement. on those that she has been, she has gone to the heart of the legal issues, defining it in its clearest terms. i love seeing her do that. i also love the fact that we have some number of justices. there was a case about california's effort to ban violent video games. justice scalia and alito were arguing about what james madison may have thought about violent video games. justice kagan chimed in talking about her own experience with british games. i think that is important. host: you touched on a case about john ashcroft. guest: it is a technical case that i will not try to resurrect but it puts the obama administration on the side of defending john ashcroft. stafford,s hear from virginia. glenda. good morning. caller: there has been a lot of assassination b

justices and he oversaw and chaired the hearings of the last three confirmations to the court, justice sotomayor, and justice kagan. he is also a member of this agriculture committee and his long cochaired in energize the work of the senate national guard office in its efforts to modernize and adequately equip the modern national guard of today. he has three children and five grandchildren. his home is in middlesex, vt., where they live in the 19th century farmhouse in the midst of their farm. senator leahy. [applause] >> dean, thank you very much for the introduction. it's hard being away from the farmhouse, but charles, i thank you in your superb staff. hosting this discussion means a lot. you and i have worked together on these issues over the years. i must admit, when i started preparing this speech, press: and others in my office, we were talking about it, things change. over the weekend. we can talk about the tragic events of these past week and for a moment. they call us to reflect on the parlance of our democracy, and our responsibilities as beneficiaries and stewards. as we enter this b

justices and he oversaw and chaired the hearings of the last three confirmations to the court, justice sotomayorodernize and adequately equip the modern national guard of today. he has three children and five grandchildren. his home is in middlesex, vt., where they live in the 19th century farmhouse in the midst of their farm. senator leahy. [applause] >> dean, thank you ve much for the introduction. it's hard being away from the farmhouse, but charles, i thank you in your superb staff. hosting this discussion means a lot. you and i have worked together on these issues over the years. i must admit, when i started preparing this speech, press: and others in my office, we were talking about it, things change. over the weekend. we can talk about the tragic events of these past week and for a moment. they call us to reflect on the parlance of our democracy, and our responsibilities as beneficiaries and stewards. as we enter this beautiful program today, many of us passed by these magnificent words of the first amendment. charleses' carve them into marble on the facade. their 74 feet high. congress s

kennedy, chief justice roberts, along with ruth bader ginsburg, steven briar, elena kagan, and sonia sotomayorwell. michigan, good morning. so yes, i was trying to talk to the representative there. i guess i will try to wake the american people up to the thought that, you know, president kennedy made a speech and nobody ever talks about what he spoke of, a shadowy people behind the scenes, doing military and different financial things that are not publicized but are hidden. and the centers are silenced the way they silenced him. also president lincoln talked about a central banking system and he was assassinated. jackson spoke against the central banking system, and they tried to assassinate him. i'm thinking that nobody is talking about people with the money for the people with the money created this situation. nobody goes to jail, nobody gets outbid on this situation. they talk to us like we are ignorant, that is so complicated that nobody understood it. people who think, people who are trained, people who plan -- people need to understand that these people are educated and intelligent. the

ruth bader ginsburg, steven briar, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan? firstill be kagan's chance as a new justice. if kennedy stays home and the four liberals decide to go, what this chief justice roberts do? does not get wide justices go to the state of the union in the first place? he criticized the and then for having degenerated into a political pep rally. as -- may decide to buy the bullet. he has to consider it -- consider the reputation of the court and how it is perceived. with four liberals going and no conservatives, it could be interpreted as a political statement, that could be especially start this year when lawmakers are bucking the tradition to sit together in peace and harmony. a breakdown of who will be sitting together. here is "usa today." lawmakers mixed and mingled. joe lieberman and john mccain, darrell issa and ed towns, joe wilson -- who yelled out "you lie" at the 2000 address plans to sit with susan davis, a democrat from california. conn. you are on the air, kenneth. what do you think, does it matter? caller: it matters. host:

justices and he oversaw and chaired the hearings of the last three confirmations to the court, justice sotomayor, and justice kagan. he is also a member of this agriculture committee and his long cochaired in energize the work of the senate national guard office in its efforts to modernize and adequately equip the modern national guard of today. he has three children and five grandchildren. his home is in middlesex, vt., where they live in the 19th century farmhouse in the midst of their farm. senator leahy. [applause] >> dean, thank you very much for the introduction. it's hard being away from the farmhouse, but charles, i thank you in your superb staff. hosting this discussion means a lot. you and i have worked together on these issues over the years. i must admit, when i started preparing this speech, press: and others in my office, we were talking about it, things change. over the weekend. we can talk about the tragic events of these past week and for a moment. they call us to reflect on the parlance of our democracy, and our responsibilities as beneficiaries and stewards. as we enter this b

he was in short justice sotomayor would do. she held broad surges and was head of pro-government experience in fourth amendment views haven't been reviewed either. the strip search case there was a gender element and i guess if i were to say when did fourth amendment values tend to win a wendi could imagine their own privacy being violated. so the one case where drug tests in schools were fine, they were okay for all sorts of context but when the judicial candidates were drug tested the court was shocked and struck down. this is to say we can only hope the supreme court is doing a lot of traveling the next couple of weeks and months and that they're going to go to plenty the indignity of being search because that is their best hope for at least checking these things down to read >> maybe we should invite them to foreign conferences. wonderful. we have time for questions of people do have questions we will get the microphone circulating and also people who are following us on tour, you are welcome to tweets some questions and we

overseeing the communication strategy around the successful nomination of supreme court justice sonia sotomayor. she was counselor -- you can applaud. [applause] >> she's been counselor to the treasury secretary helping to guide the strategy behind the development and implementation of the administration's financial stability plan. she has served as a senior strategist for some of the remarkable policy leaders, public leaders including our dear friend, ted kennedy, john kerry and harry reid. she was the chief spokesperson for the obama -- there'll be time for her to speak. >> i'm just looking at half the presentation. >> she was the chief spokesperson for the obama/biden campaign. she's here and give her a warm welcome. [applause] >> so stephanie, i was wondering maybe you could open up and give us a sense of the lay of the land in terms of where we are today. >> sure. first let me say as ron mentioned, i worked for senator kennedy for many years that's when i became familiar with families usa and i just want to say thank you for all you do every day out there fighting for better health care an

he was in short justice sotomayor would do. she held broad surges and was head of pro-government experience in fourth amendment views haven't been reviewed either. the strip search case there was a gender element and i guess if i were to say when did fourth amendment values tend to win a wendi could imagine their own privacy being violated. so the one case where drug tests in schools were fine, they were okay for all sorts of context but when the judicial candidates were drug tested the court was shocked and struck down. this is to say we can only hope the supreme court is doing a lot of traveling the next couple of weeks and months and that they're going to go to plenty the indignity of being search because that is their best hope for at least checking these things down to read >> maybe we should invite them to foreign conferences. wonderful. we have time for questions of people do have questions we will get the microphone circulating and also people who are following us on tour, you are welcome to tweets some questions and we

same thing as it means in exemption 7(c), but because -- precisely for the reason you said, justice sotomayor -- the personnel, medical, and similar files limits the likely scope of that privacy interest to individual, natural -natural persons. and that's simply not because of the words "personal privacy," but because of the company that those words keep in that -- in that particular exemption. >> why? i mean, if you're saying that personal privacy has some overlap with individual privacy -- obviously, it has to if you're going to give meaning to personal privacy -- don't we have to give meaning to "and similar files"? and so what would those be? >> well, your honor, as this court said in the washington post case, the understanding of similar files is defined by the two benchmarks that are expressly provided, right? personnel and medical. so the kinds of files are limited to the sorts of files in which individual information is likely to be contained. in that case, it was a passport file. again, our -- our argument is simply that it is that part of exemption 6 that does the limited work in te

justices and he oversaw and chaired the hearings of the last three confirmations to the court, justice sotomayor, and justice kagan. he is also a member of this agriculture committee and his long cochaired in energize the work of the senate national guard office in its efforts to modernize and adequately equip the modern national guard of today. he has three children and five grandchildren. his home is in middlesex, vt., where they live in the 19th century farmhouse in the midst of their farm. senator leahy. [applause] >> dean, thank you very much for the introduction. it's hard being away from the farmhouse, but charles, i thank you in your superb staff. hosting this discussion means a lot. you and i have worked together on these issues over the years. i must admit, when i started preparing this speech, press: and others in my office, we were talking about it, things change. over the weekend. we can talk about the tragic events of these past week and for a moment. they call us to reflect on the parlance of our democracy, and our responsibilities as beneficiaries and stewards. as we enter this b

justice sotomayor has been very active in her questioning. most recently, they filed separate decisions about capital defense, insisting the court review capital cases, which puts them at odds with justice alito. justice keychain has not been sitting on many cases because of her involvement. on those that she has been, she has gone to the heart of the legal issues, defining it in its clearest terms. i love seeing her do that. i also love the fact that we have some number of justices. there was a case about california's effort to ban violent video games. justice scalia and alito were arguing about what james madison may have thought about violent video games. justice kagan chimed in talking about her own experience with british games. i ink that is important. host: you touched on a case about john ashcroft. guest: it is a technical case that i will not try to resurrect but it puts the obama administration on the side of defending john ashcroft. stafford,s hear from virginia. glenda. good morning. caller: there has been a lot of assassination b