attended the speaking he is the s.g. boss so does depend on personality the most presidents in to recognize because they find them to be more credible and then value from those to say no time to time. and those involving groupthink then here comes this independent act. i think presidents value that information because they know it is credible coming from a reasonable source. there have been instances where they tried to push the s.g. and the more often than not presidency cabinet members are willing to defer to the solicitor general and i recall in the 1990's the federal court struck down portions of nafta of and awaited to put yoda a position after they heard from the solicitor general. that is a high degree of credibility paid by the president to the s.g. office >> host: from the university of wisconsin missed -- madison speaking with professor ryan owens "the solicitor general and the united states supreme court" the books are for sale at the register. thank-you to the parkinson's institute into michele for hoping to a

but then not to be party in the case with illustrations wants the s.g. to get involved they could file a suit. >> the current solicitor general is a well-known name in washington and. >> among those circles it was always will go. so then natchez the media becomes more widespread now with social media. and they have followings today. to this because there were so many former law students but if you look at it justice

i think the s.g.' office has to be as good as it gets. >> one more question from me while folks are patiently waiting. you all campaigned for office successfully. i am just interested to hear how you translated rule of law issues which aren't always, you know, majorityarian or popular. how did you translate that into a campaign that won votes. how did you approach that? >> well, let's take the federalism litigation as an example. in defending our state in a disability discrimination case, a case where i argued that congress exceeded its power in subjecting state governments to suits for money damages under the americans with disabilities act, they were certainly advocates from the disability community who did not agree with our legal position and made arguments in the public square against it. but for me it was important not to get lost in the weeds about the legal argument, but when communicating with voters, to tell them what was really at stake. we didn't argue that state governments were free to di

ted m lk frowndownto reno.an atd thea's rw lly hoalyou rely in germthate biese s.g idea" an id that hs whatd appeneat the er univ tsity'senedx ev01t in 23 fo r th enar 13 yeog old llaan lapnte. avhe gtae a lkn os hi ha now es overoiight phtnt eigmi villion yews onbeoutu. im