sonya sotomayor was his first supreme court appointment but not his last.hn paul stevens his announced his retirement he nominated elaina kag ax n for the seat on supreme court. president obama has so far had two. one big, sometimes awkward question that lingered over the final two years of his presidency is whether he will get another pick as well. the oldest serving member of the supreme court is ruth bader ginsburg. she is 81. she was appointed by bill clinton in 1993 after a career that included find founding the women's rights movement in the aclu. all the speculation when it comes to ruth bader ginsburg is how much longer does she intend to serve? when you look at ruth bader ginsburg this that way, as 81 years old, somebody that survived a number of health scares including more than one bout with cancer it seems like a logical question to ask and then you hear her speak and hear her opinions on the latest discussions before the supreme court, yeah 81 years of age but ruth bader ginsburg is not only on top of her game but maybe at the height of her gam

president obama has chosen sonya sotomayor and elena kagan.not every it race of the supreme court hears brown versus board, rowe versus wade. not every court hears cases that are household names. but the supreme court of the united states has breathtaking power on a myriad of issues. nothing else in government is like it. even just right now we're awaiting oral arguments in the next few months on cases that might eliminate the whole of obama care in one fell swoop. millions of people losing their health insurance all at once. they will hear those and rule in the next few months. we're also waiting for a case that could legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. that is all just in the next few months. the supreme court is always really important, and a president's choices around who they would put on the supreme court are among the most important criteria that we have when it comes to choosing a president. we know that jeb bush would have liked peter t. faye for the supreme court. okay. but our supreme court right now has on it's plate an unusuall

as justice sotomayor, for example, indicated. it's a request for a financial transaction. connected to the larger election to be sure. but acknowledged, i think, finally by the petitioners to be of a different character. second lawyer and judge speech really are different, again, acknowledged this morning by the petitioners. there are plenty of places in society where first amendment notwithstanding, we compel people not to say certain things, or we compel them to say certain things. this is easy in the world of finance, for example. you can't put out a securities offering without including information or you won't get registered. there's a penalty for doing that. lawyers and judges especially consent to these requirements when we decide to become members of the bar in the first instance. so that there are ways in which a lawyer's speech is limited. a lawyer can't stand in front of a court and knowingly speak falsely about the record or about the facts. may not end up in jail. but he's certainly going to have a problem with his law license and he ought to. and the same is

president obama so far has chosen sonia sotomayor and alaina kagan. supreme court nominations are among the most important things that any president does ever. and not every iteration of the supreme court hears brown versus board of education or bush v. gore for that matter or roev. wade. not every iteration of the court hears cases that become household names and that change the world drastically and forever. but the scattered showers of the united states has breath taking power. on a mereadeyrad of issues. we're awaiting cases that might elimination the whole of obamacare in one fell swoop. millions of people losing their health insurance at once they could do that. we're awaiting another case that could legalize same-sex marriage nationwide or not. we're waiting another case that could ban the way that states kill their prisoners now by lethal injection. that's all in the next few months. the supreme court is really important. and a president's choices around who they would put on the supreme court are among the most important criteria we have when

the failure to accommodate is not a disparate impact claim for the reason justice sotomayor has said. it's the intentional refusal to hire because of religious practice that you could reasonably accommodate. this is not as the amicus brief suggested a disparate impact claim. >> i'm sorry i don't know why you just don't concede it's a form of disparate treatment. know you to accommodate is a form of disparate treatment. >> i think it is a former disparate treatment. i just want to distinguish the different theories because under the disparate treatment approach as the lower courts have used it you would have to show it's because of the religious nature of the practice. for example again i allow hats for everyone but not if you have a religious hat. that would be as the lower courts call it conventional disparate treatment and if i could -- the balance of my time. >> mr. dvoretzky. >> may it please the court. the premise of the argument today as i understand it is abercrombie acted because of the religious basis for ms. elauf's headscarf. it is not correct is a factual assumption. any t

>> yes, justice sotomayor. >> those are the three steps. if you can propose ways that are race-neutral practices that will have -- that will take care of their needs, then you get relief. >> for example, do not continue putting projects next to landfills and hazardous industrial uses. >> you have a tension between two statutes. you have the fair housing act and then there is the law of the tax credit. doesn't that law say that there should be a priority for revitalizing decaying communities? >> the law specifically says there should be a preference among all projects awarded for applications that contribute to a concerted community revitalization plan. that preference is honored in the remedy. if an application is contributing to a concerted community revitalization plan, then it gets the same points as a project that is going to be in a higher income property area. >> why should you get more if the tax law expresses that preference for revitalization? >> justice ginsburg, it could. the state just hasn't set it up that way. the state could

. >> justice sotomayor>>, the phrase "make available" is an act prohibited by the fair housing act. >> consequence. it happens to be because that is what you do with housing but that is a consequence. >> the act of making unavailable is the act prohibited by the fair housing. this isn't like section 482. this is like section 481. it prohibits the refusal to negotiate, otherwise making unavailable or denying -- all of those are active verbs. the work is to cover additional acts like zoning decisions or land-use restrictions that are not outright refusals or denials. that is why the language of the fair housing act focuses on actions. >> you could say the same thing about adverse effects. that is also an active for. -- ana ctive verb. the point is true enough but they were also true with respect to title vii, weren't they? >> i don't believe so. section 482 to ban the act of limiting segregating class line, and then checking for a certain result -- something which would deprive, tend to deprive her adversely affect -- results a fact checking language that gave rise to disparate impact -

her book "breaking in the rise of sonia sotomayor." what did we learn about sonia sotomayor. >> we learned what she has been doing while she has been on the court for the last five years. this book is a political history that tells you how she got on the supreme court, and then what her life has been like since. it picks up where her memoir left off. you learn in the opening chapter how she persuaded her fellow justices to salsa with her. then you also learn how she has been effective behind the scenes on the law, and times when she hasn't been so effective. >> you haveless written a biography of antonin scalia. how are they different? how are they the same? >> well, there are a lot to the same in some ways. both new yorkers, one frommance one from the bronx. both very distinctive personalities, both checking up the court. she has been there since 2009. i would neverunder estimate what she is about to do -- never underestimate what she is about to do. she is a very good agent for himself, not unlike he was for himself, and they both un

sonia sotomayor, on your point, what is important about this case is precisely that it is unusual. what is unusual is the applicant found out why she was not hired and most of the time the person never finds out no accommodation was made. the employers in the accommodation would be needed and never told. >> in a lawsuit of course. >> and then find out. >> face certainly could. >> it happens often. >> i am not sure it does. that makes this an important case. most applicants unlike employees who are not positioned to go back and forth with their employer and understands applicants are at an informational disadvantage. they don't know the work rules and in this case it is undisputed did she did not. picking up on something elena kagan was pointing out, the background rule is belief is sufficient but what makes this case particularly strong is this is believed plus assumption, acted on that belief and assumed she would need accommodation from work will and they were wrong to conclude otherwise. >> the case is submitted. >> the house and senate have a temporary spending measure to fund

to use justice sotomayor's example of the signs. they may have an ordinance that limits the number of signs you can have on your lawn to two. we're not going to count for sale signs against your quote ta of two. they're only up on a small percentage of properties at any given period of time. they go down once the sale is consummated. >> you sorted these ordinances out one by one. examine each of these exceptions, say, you know this is okay, and this isn't okay? >> i don't know that the federal judiciary is numerous enough to do that. and it's a much more simple rule that the other side presents. keep all signs the same, if clutter is the problem, they all clutter, you shouldn't allow or zs allow on the basis of the message. >> it's a simple rule, but an extremely impractical rule let me give you another example of a town that has some sort of sign restriction. it doesn't apply that to children at play or hidden drive way ahead. if you're going to apply strict scrutiny to those kinds of exceptions, they're probably not going to pass

joan biskupic what have we learned about sonia sotomayor? >> guest: we have learned what she's been doing while she's been on the court for the last five years. this is a political history that tells you how she got on the supreme court and what her life has been like since. it picks up where her memoir left off so you learn in the opening chapter how she persuaded her fellow justices to salsa with her. but then you also learn how she has been affected by mind the scenes on bob and sometimes she hasn't been so effective. if. >> host: you also read a biography of anton scalia. how are they different and how are they the same? >> guest: they are the same in some ways. they're both new yorkers, one from queens and one from the bomb -- bronx going through distinctive personalities both shaking up the joint in different ways. i would never ever asked me what she is about to do. not unlike the way he was and they both understand the importance of being visible. look how visible justice scalia has been with his own books on the go visible she has b

i have justice kagan on the left, justice sotomayor on my right. and if you can't come if you watched proceedings, it's really quite a show. [laughter] my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. so the public will see that women are all over the bench. they very much a part of the colloquy. yes, people ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? when will there be enough women on the court? and my answer is when there are nine. [applause] [laughter] some people are taken aback. but remember for most of our countries history, there were only men on the high court bench. >> now, i want to open the floor for questions, but just one last question. as you are about to all of our since you are about to start their legal career and you betcha such an extraordinary career, is there one or two pieces of advice villages like to give them as they are about to begin? >> i have loved everything that i've done in the law. it's a great profession but i will say that -- [inaudible] i don't think i would have had nearly the satisfaction that i have.

we thought with justice kagan and sotomayor before they took the bench, they would be interested.arent. they give you their opinions their dissent, and they give you their thinking but they don't seem to be locking in on the idea. >> we have this impression that they're so impenetrable. it would be interesting to see. >>> other headlines today, a bill approving a keystone pipeline gets a ceremonial signing but it won't get the signature it needs, that of president obama. house speaker john boehner signed it in a photo op but he knows president obama promised to veto it. it will generate tens of thousands of new jobs. democrats not so sure. no word on when it will arrive on the president's desk. he'll have ten days to veto it once its arrives. >>> taking a look at the dow, it traded more than 18,000 up. if it closes up it would be the second straight week of gains. right now it seems the dow is up slightly but just below 198. we'll keep an eye on it. >>> gas pleen prices won't help change that. oil hit its highest level trading about $60 a barrel despite an oversupply of crude oil.

i have just kagan on my left, sotomayor on my right. and if you watch proceedings in our court -- you really should it's quite a show -- [laughter] -- my newest colleague not a shrinking violet. so the public will see that women are all over the bench. they are very much a part of the colloquy. yes. people ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? when will there be enough women on the court? and my answer is, when there are nine. [laughter] some people are taken aback until they remember that for most of our country's history there were only men on the high court bench. >> now, i want to open the floor for questions. but just one last question. as you're about to -- all of our students here are about to start their legal career, and you've had just such an extraordinary career. is there one or two pieces of advice that you'd like to give them as they're about to begin? >> i have loved everything that i've done in the law. i think it's a great profession. but i will say that if all i was in the law business for was to turn o

justice sotomayor. my question for you and it can't be the formal act of writing the ticket, it has to be the formal -- it has to be the acts related to the mission when you finish those, that's when the stop ends. >> yes, your honor. that is exactly right. >> yeah but you've tied it to just writing and handing over the ticket or not even doing that. you're saying just writing the ticket which is crazy. >> if, in fact, that's the impression that i gave. that is wrong. it is not the formal handing of the ticket. it is when the stop is complete. once the justification for the stop and the purpose is complete, the ticket is done whether it is a warning, whether it is handed to them at some point in time, the ticket is done. that's the investigation. >> justice sotomayor's question assumes, and you apparently embrace the assumption that checking on whether you have a proper license, checking whether the car is stolen, all of those things are embraced within the mission when the only basis for the stop is yo

association of women lawyers at the confirmation hearing of supreme court justice sonia society -- sonia sotomayor. she-- joann said the following about her legal career, and i'm quoting, i've spent much of my career not seeing ahead of me someone who was like me and i had to make my way without that. i want to be a resource for young people entering the profession that i never had." joanne's dedication to both legal education and the legal profession has helped empower countless young attorney's to exceed expectations and to fulfill their dreams. joanne epps is here today in the gallery of the senate and as the rules tell us we're not allowed to acknowledge those in the gallery. i'm saying that for my friends but she's joined by family and friends and i'm going to go through a list here and if i miss someone someone will tell me later. starting with her husband. l. harrison jay. her uncle harold ashton. her cousins eric ashton, joan and tommy fry. donnie debbie and adrian and christopher jackson and marcia and glenn yarborough. i'll hear if i miss someone a little later. but we're honored that sh

you can see soanya sotomayor ruth bader ginsburg, and sandra day o'connor. we call it the supremes.hter] they came and had their unveiling. i cannot tell you how many times i come across the gallery and see some bright spots. people take a selfie. it is the easiest way to get into the supreme court that i know of. belva lockwood, you see this wonderful woman of 1913 who graduated from law school in washington and became one of the first female lawyers in the united states. she became a teacher and a principal. despite the fact she was not allowed to vote, she actually wanted to become president and ran for president in 1884 on the ticket of national equal rights party. she was the first woman ever to appear on the official ballot. it was thanks to women like belva, who is in the collection, that we can talk about the story of the supremes. it is not just about women. it is also about native americans. here we have sequoia. sequoia was a son of a cherokee chief who worked to develop a written form of the native language. he created an alphabet in 1828. we have geronimo in the middle

now i am more senior and i sit towards the middle and i have justice cagle on my left and justice sotomayor on my right and if we watch the proceedings it is quite a show. [laughter] and so it is part of this as we sit on the bench. we are very much part of the policy. >> people ask me sometimes when do you think that it will be enough? and my answer is when there are none. [laughter] [applause] >> some people are talking about this and there are only men in years past on this high court bench. >> just one last question. as you are about to answer questions from students that are about to start your legal career you have had such an extraordinary career, is there any advice you would like to give them as they are about to begin? >> everything that i've done, i think that it is great. i will say bad i don't think i would've had nearly the satisfaction if [inaudible] and yes, you need a job. but if you don't do something outside of yourself something that will make a difference and that will make life a little bit better for other people, you're not really a true professional. and near like a

i have justice kagan at my left, justice sotomayor on my right and if you come and watch proceedings in our court you really should come as quite a show. [laughter] my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. so the public will see that women are all over the bench. they very much are part of the colloquy. people ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? when will there be enough women on the court? my answer is when there are nine. [applause] [laughter] and some people were taken aback. so we remember for most of our countries history there were all men on the high court bench. >> i want to open the floor for questions but one last question as you are about to come alive for students here are about to start their legal career and you have had such an extraordinary career is there one or two pieces of advice if you would like to give them as they are about to begin? >> i have loved everything that i have done. it's a great profession but i will say that if all that i was in cobol business for would be to turn over a -- i don't think i would have had nearly the satisfa

i have justice kagan on my left, justice sotomayor on my right. and if you watch proceedings in our court, you really should it is quite a show, my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. so the public will see that women are all over the bench. they are very much a part of the colloquy colloquy. yes. people ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? when will there be enough women on the court. and my answer is, when there are nine. some people are taken aback, until they remember that from most of our country's history there were only men on the high court bench. >> now i want to open the floor for questions but just one last question. as you're about to -- all of our students here are about to start their legal career, and you've had just such an extraordinary career, is there one or two pieces of advice that you'd like to give them as they are about to begin? >> i have done everything that i've done in the law. i think it is a great profession. but i will say that if all i was in the law business for was to turn over a buck i d

that won't seem to quit actually welcome news to some small businesses like this snow services in sotomayorhey actually live for blizzard. but a mild beginning to winter had them concerned. >> everybody in the snow business when it doesn't snow they all get depressed. so we had quite a dry november and december which is unusual, and most of january was very -- you know there really wasn't much snow. then all of a sudden you get hit with a one-two punch. >> in a typical season ippolito will bring in $150,000 but in the past four weeks they were nearing the $400,000 mark and that was before the latest storm hit. in fact, business has been so good for the snow removal company they have stopped taking on new clients. ippolito told me they are investing the additional revenue back into the business purchasing equipment that would have taken them three years to save for. now, other small businesses in the area namely restaurants and retailers, tell me they're losing cash quickly and can't afford to get hit with another storm. let's hope they don't. back to you. >> that's the flip side of it. kate

her book "breaking in the rise of sonia sotomayor." what did we learn about sonia sotomayor. >> we learned what she has been doing while she has been on the court for the last five years. this book is a political history that tells you how she got on the supreme court, and then what her life has been like since. it picks up where her memoir left off. you learn in the opening chapter how she persuaded her fellow justices to salsa with her. then you also learn how she has been effective behind the scenes on the law, and times when she hasn't been so effective. >> you haveless written a biography of antonin scalia. how are they different? how are they the same? >> well, there are a lot to the same in some ways. both new yorkers, one frommance one from the bronx. both very distinctive personalities, both checking up the court. she has been there since 2009. i would neverunder estimate what she is about to do -- never underestimate what she is about to do. she is a very good agent for himself, not unlike he was for himself, and they both un

supreme court justice sonia sotomayor has been backing away from her pre-confirmation position that camerasn the supreme court might be a good thing. a quote in today's "washington times" noted that to use this report as a stage rather than a courtroom meantime moving more closely to saying that i think it might be a bad idea. for more on cameras in the court and c-span's role in the court we want to turn to justice kagan's statement of policy when she was asked about her need cameras in the supreme court. [video clip] >> i used to be solicitor general and i used to go up there for not only my own argument but because they were people in my office with different argument. i was there day after day in the front row, kind of getting this front row seat to this institution. we used to think, this is really quite amazing how well this institution operates, and if people were able to see it, you know, these nine people with a differing range of views about legal matters, but all coming in and taking their seats on the bench so well prepared, who asked such excellent questions and who in my mind