i asked the question of ted olson when he was nominated, the senator just passed the mccain feingold bill. mr. olson written the following about 20 years earlier at the harvard journal of public law and policy." -- "the law does not withstand are antipathy towards pilaus. to be a pulled the constitutionality of congressional enactments, whether we like them or not. if we are the government's lawyers even if we feel it is questionable constitutionality, we must enforce it and depenfend it." do you agree with what ted olson wrote? >> absolutely. one assumes a set of responsibilities with which the defense of statute is one of the most critically important. you defend those statutes whether you would have voted for those statutes or not. i know that ted olson would not have voted for the mccain feingold bill, but he and paul clement did an extraordinary job of defending that piece of legislation, which i think you'll agree. that is what the solicitor general does. but i agree with that. he did a superb job. -- >> i agree with that. he did a superb job. i could've swornhat he was persuade

i know that ted olson would not have voted for the mccain-final bill. -- feingold bill. but he did an extraordinary job defending that piece of legislation, which i think you will agree. that is what the solicitor general does. but i agree with that. he did a superb job. -- >> i agree with that. he did a superb job. i could've sworn that he was persuaded because of the job he did. >> for that day, he was persuaded. that is all you need. >> let me ask you about the conflict of interest restrictions. it is somewhat ironic. as i mentioned, i was pleased with how the justice department handled their responsibility to the king -- to defend that bill. he is involved -- his been involved in challenging the constitutionality of the statues. -- since he left office, he has been involved in challenging the constitutionality of those statutes. i'm somewhat concerned by that. his challenge in the statutes that he defended ably as solicitor general. president obama has been very tough ago restrictions -- ethical restrictions, going well beyond revolving-door limitations. can you revi

for example, a former solicitor general ted olson, and a former solicitor general charles fried. host: of the conservatives voted for her during that solicitor general confirmation. guest: yes, she was approved by a vote of 61-31 and she won support from seven republicans. not a high number, but there were some key votes, including senator orrin hatch, a republican from utah. host: what happens next? guest: there will be a lot of activity over the next four or five weeks. the record will be scrutinized by critics and supporters. the hearing will begin. senator leahy and senator sessions will schedule the hearings. it could be the last week in june or maybe early in july. they have to navigate among a lot of different factors, including a traditional recess around the fourth of july. last year president obama named sotomayor on may 26 in the hearings began in july. he is getting a little jump on things. host: if you follow the time line of sotomayor's confirmation, when you see a possible confirmation for elena kagan? guest: easily by july. she took her oath in early august. she c