ted olson on behalf of the bush campaign and david on behalf of the gore campaign somewhat in contrast to your attorney, dahlia lithwick, these were accomplished basis although david argued previously at the u.s. supreme court he had been handling the arguments in the florida court and was probably as familiar as anyone with the florida law as it unfolded. but he and countered in particular and i spent time talking with each of them subsequent to the arguments in preparation for this book was what had become a bit of a to attract possibility in the way the court was going to decide the case of bush v. gore article to issue as to whether the court in florida adhered to constitutional provisions, really kind of a structural approach as to whether the court in florida was respecting the desires and wishes of the florida legislature in terms of how all the electors would be chosen for the vote on the presidency, or whether there was an equal protection issue and the way everyone who cast a vote within the state of florida but particularly in four of the county's was being judged. whether e

and we have ted olson also well known to you. a washington attorney who has argued i think 52 cases before the supreme court, that is not a record but certainly put some in the big league of practitioners before that body. i know my colleagues feel as i do in thinking the fourth circuit, chief judge williams, judge niemeyer, and the other judges of the circuit for their hospitality. an extraordinary staff. i can't think the staff people too much for having helped us with the arrangements so they have made us comfortable and so that the panel doesn't suit your expectations not because the circuit and a staff didn't do their best. we are as you know now in the fourth year of the so-called roberts court. there is the convention of calling the supreme court by the name of the chief justice that is sometimes a little bit deceptive here and we have reason to think this will be in every sense of the world the roberts court, but it is a young court yet. i'm going to provide a little historical context at the outset. instruct mean and i c

i do not think you can find any better panelists then linda greenhouse and ted olson. they will discuss for placements and retirements. we are very very proud that we have panelists of this caliber. we're delighted to have our friend and circuit justice, as i mentioned, is sometimes very hard to be unanimous about anything. this is like herding cats. if there is one thing, it is our respect for chief justices. one of the things that i think we respect so much about him is that he has an essential service of the dignity of the job. it is our great fortune to have someone of the chief justice's caliber leading our system. i have a few questions for you. you mentioned last night, in your remarks, that one of the things that you had accomplished was to follow the caliber of the supreme court little bit so that everything would and get jammed up in may and june. that is one of the reforms to have worked on. if there is -- what aspect of operations would you change? what is the one single thing about the president -- the present supreme court practice that you would change i

who have spoken out on his behalf including former solicitor general ted olson and former white house chief of staff joshua bolton. no less a conservative legal authority than ken starr wrote: the president's nomination of harold koh deserves to be honored and respected. for our part as americans who love our country, we should be grateful that such an extraordinarily talented lawyer and scholar is willing to leave the deanship at his beloved yale law school and take on this important but sacrificial form of service to our nation. so, mr. president, i think that says it all. that's the kind of legal advisor we need at the state department. i urge my colleagues to support this nomination and to vote for cloture on this nomination. i would yield -- how much time do we have on our side? at least another 15 minutes. the presiding officer: 3 minutes and 40 seconds. mr. kerry: that's the total time we have available? the presiding officer: that's the total time remaining, controlled by the majority. mr. kerry: i divide it evenly between senator lieberman and senator feingold. mr. lieberman:

i don't think you can find any better panelists than london greenhouse, it john mcginnis, and ted olson. we're going to discuss some retirements and the past supreme court term. we're very proud of that panelists of this caliber would join us for the occasion. we are especially delighted as always to have our friend and circuit justice, the chief justice. as i mentioned last night, it is sometimes very hard to get judges to be unanimous about anything. i think you can say about judges sometimes, you can say about legislatures. getting together on something is like herding cattle -- herding cats. those of us and the federal judiciary are arguing -- it is out of respect. he is someone of great warmth and great humor. in the enormous legal skills. one of the things i think that we respect some much about him is that he has an essential sense of the dignity of the job. those of us in the federal judiciary are absolutely -- it is our great good fortune to have someone of the chief justice's caliber leading our system. i have a few questions of you, chief. you mentioned last night in your rem

endorsed by leaders, legal scholars from both political parties including former solicitor general ted olson, ken starr, josh bolten, seven former department of state legal advisers, including three republicans, more than 100 law school teens and 600 law professors from around the country what more do we ask for someone who wants to serve this country? several retired high-ranking military lawyers have written if the u.s. follows koh's advice as state department legal adviser -- quote -- "we will once again be the shining example of a nation advancing human rights that we want other countries to emulate." here's an excerpt for support ken starr sent to senators kerry and lugar. i've had my differences with kenneth starr. politically we're kind of on opposite sides. here's what he he said of dean koh who is considered of by this empty chamber. he wrote that my -- firsthand knowledge, we've been vigorous adversaries in litigation. we embrace different perspectives about a variety of substantive issues. as citizens we no doubt vote quite differently. but based on my two decades of interaction w

find any better panelist than jan crawford greenberg and lizzie greenhouse and john mcginnis and ted olson. they are going to discuss replacements an retirements, and the past supreme court term. we're very proud that our pals of this caliber would join us for the occasion, and we're especially delighted, as always, to help our friends to serve as the chief justice. as i mentioned last night, sometimes it's very hard to get judges to be unanimous about anything. i think you can say anything you can say about judges sometimes, which you can say about legislature is getting them together on something is like herding cows, but if there's one thing that those of us in the federal judiciary argue now about in this hour of respect, affection for the chief justice. he is someone of great warmth and great humor, and enormous legal skills, and one of the things i think we respect so much about him is he has an essential sense of the dignity of the job, so those of us in the federal judiciary to have someone of the chief justice's caliber leading our system. i have a few questions of you, chief. you

gore and his quotes from ted olson suggest if the justice suggest they want to go in a direction you were going to follow them in that direction so how do you reconcile this? is your case the anomaly or how can we best understand oral? >> if you know katherine you know that she is stubborn at large and she was and remains very committed to her cause. if you keep in mind this was as much a political adventure as it was jurisprudential winter price , catherine knew what was on the line and it was a high risk. she was rolling for a major loss if she they're offended kennedy or o'connor because she clearly needed both of them. and from the excerpts we have played for the audience it's clear both of them came into the arguments skeptical of her go for broke approach. i don't think it was -- you could say it was an admiration in the sense that not many causes or that emotional. dahlia's chapter is about another one that is, the death penalty case ase, too. but most time you go into an oral argument, the issue is not quite as close as it was in this case. most of the cases are not bound to

then a panel of experienced court watchers, including linda greenhouse, jan crawford greenberg, and ted olson, review the decisions handed down this year. live coverage on c-span, saturday morning at 9:00 eastern. >> july 4 weekend on book tv, discover and unfamiliar side of our nation's first president. we are live from fort washington's mount vernon estate with historian and author john ferling. join our conversation on sunday, july 5, live on "in depth." >> how is c-span funded? >> through donations? >> i think they get a little bit from the federal government. >> grants and stuff like that. >> made the sponsors? >> they might get government funding. >> the viewers? >> how with c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: senator mark begich joins us. guest: thank you very much. good to see you. host: good to see you as well the 2010 defense authorization -- what should we look for? guest: i am going to each subcommittee listening to their presentations. as we g

then a panel of experienced court watchers including linda greenhouse, jan crawford greenberg, and ted olson review the decisions. saturday morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> july 4 weekend, discover an unfamiliar side of our nation's first president as we are live from george washington's mount vernon estate with historian and author john ferling. sunday, july 5, lion on "in depth." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back eric cantor, house minority leader and republican from virginia is seventh congressional district. thank you for being with us. guest: good to be with you. host: let me begin by showing you an excerpt of what the president said last night on the abc program in regards to how this program, these changes in health care will be paid. from the east room of the white house last night. >> if it was easy it would have been sold a long time -- solve the long time ago. we have been talking about how do we provide care that is high- quality, gives people choices and how can we come up with a uniquely american plan, because one of the ideological debates that i

as well as some court watchers, including linda greenhouse, gen crawford greenberg, and ted olson. live coverage at 9:00 eastern on c-span, saturday. >> join our 3 our conversation sunday, july 5, live on in depth on c-span-2's book tv. >> how is c-span funded? >> through donations crac? >> my guess is government funding. >> the viewers? >> how with c-span funded? 30 years ago america pause cable companies greeted c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is representative todd akin. good morning. >guest: good morning, a pleasure to join you. host: tell us what is happening on your committee. guest: the armed services committee looks over all the military needs of the entire country. i iman see, power, there are others on the land and air. there is a $600 million budget for the new year. that is maybe a 1% increase, so maybe with inflation is a little bit of a cut perhaps. it is a pretty bipartisan committee. people get along pretty well on it because everybody wants to s

then a panel of experience court watchers including linda greenhouse, jan crawford greenberg and ted olson review the decisions handed down this past year. live coverage on c-span saturday morning at 9:00 eastern. >> now elizabeth edwards talking about patients' rights. she spokane washington at the patient's advocate foundation. this is about 40 minutes. >> good evening. good evening. i would like to invite all of you to continue to enjoy your dinner, but we certainly want to have adequate time and attention to enjoy the remark that elizabeth edwards is here to share with us this evening. i would like to introduce her the way all of us as advocates i think know her. i think elizabeth that if there was one thing this audience could say to you is that we see you to be a woman of substance. bctv someone that is an advocate for children. [applause] you are passionate about sharing your experience with cancer. we see you also as someone who is reached into your community and established scholarships and in honor of your son, wade and also an honor of your father and we also have scholarships f

ted olson, would you like to take us into the preemption part of this? >> i would love to. i know preemption is very much in your mind. it is a saturday morning issue. i would like to say something more about the civil rights case, but briefly. john roberts, chief justice roberts in the earlier voting rights case, and i think it was his first term, said something that it is as sorted business -- it is a sordid business to be beat up by race. then in the seattle and louisville cases he said the way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race, so he feels pretty strongly about that, and he's got colleagues on the court that feel pretty strongly about it, too i feel about the narrowness of the northwest austin decision, one of the those april arguments where there isn't much time to get everything done. they have got to get everything done by the end of the june. the strip search case, which we're going to come to later was also a late april argument and the tenor of the oral argument was a lot different than what the decision came

and in contrast, charles' description of bush versus gore and his quotes from ted olson suggest if the justices suggest they want to go in a direction you're going to follow them in that direction so how do you reconcile this? is your case the anomaly here or how can we best understand oral? >> if you know katherine colbert, you know that she is stubborn. and she was and she remains very committed to her cause. so if you keep in mind that this was as much a political adventure as it was a jurisprudence enterprise and katherine knew what was on the line. it was a high risk. she was really rolling for a major loss if she either offended kennedy or o'connor because she clearly needed both of them. and from the excerpts that we played for our audience, it's clear that both of them came into the arguments skeptical of her go for broke approach. i don't think it was -- well, you could probably say it was an aberration in the sense that not many causes are that emotional. i mean, dahlia's chapter is about another and a death penalty case is too. most of the time when you go into an oral argum

and a panel of experience court watchers, including linda greenhouse, jan crawford greenberg, and ted olson review decisions handed down. saturday morning line. this week's of the release of more than 150 hours of secret recordings from the nixon white house -- from early 1973, on the agreement to end the vietnam war. >> they are not to have any advanced information. the message is not to be from me, clear? >> more from the newly released tapes, saturday afternoon on c- span radio. >> this weekend, book tv features books of the economy. saturday, tips on how to deal with the current economic crisis from pat robertson, founder of the christian broadcasting network. cnbc commentator on whom to blame for the recession. we will also feature martin featureannelise anderson on why reagan believed destroying nuclear-weapons would bring an end to the soviet union. and a talk about pakistan with new york post columnist ralph peters. the entire schedule is on line with great new features, including streaming video and easy to search archives. booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. joining us

and ted olson, would you like to take us into that? >> i'd love to do that. i know preemption's very much on your mind out there. [laughter] >> it's a saturday morning issue. [laughter] >> i'd like to say a word or two about the civil rights cases. >> okay. >> but very briefly. john roberts, chief justice roberts in the earlier voting rights case and i think it was his first term said something, and it's a sordid business di i having this up -- divvying this up by race. and in the louisville and seattle cases he said the way to end discrimination on the way sis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race, so he feels pretty strongly about that, and he's got some colleagues on the court that feel pretty strongly about it too. i have a feeling about the narrowness of the northwest austin decision, it was one of those april argues where there isn't very much time to get everything done. they've got to be done by the end of june. the strip search case which, i guess, we're going to come to later was also a late april argument, and the oral argument ten

,be panelxof experience court watchers, édincluding linda greenhouse, jn crawford greenberg, and ted olsoniew thenek decisions handed down this year. live coverage of the saturday news conference today at the hourlong event werexh!q about h care and iran. $xlcmr÷2kr%tvd7áñ;zs c113!gw( [captioning performed by [captions copyright national cable s%9rjyúr.9ñ 20Ñzço >> i would like to say a few words about this attrition in iran. the united states and the western community have been involvedmoÑ by the beatings and imprisonment and the last few days. i strongly condemn these unjust actions and i strongly joined with the american people in mourning withóÑw each life thats xñlost. i have made.b that the united states respects the sovereignty of thetislamic republic of iran and is not 's affairs. ocbut we must also bearuxs witno dlyiranian)rÑ people and the remarkable0(÷ opening4dç within iranian society. and we deplore the violence against innocent civili9mì(lc@&+ anywhere that it takes place. the iraniano(i people are tryino have a debate/iñ about their future. some in iran -- in the iran