but not the way thomas died last week. shot by a former player in the weight room in front of several current players. who knows the killer's motivation? maybe time will tell. but the shock to the town of parkersburg, iowa, is immeasurable, almost as immeasurable as how much ed thomas meant to it. >> the united states' upset of top-ranked spain in the fifa confederations cup semifinal might seem just a pleasant surprise at first. after all, spain hadn't lost in three years. but in reality, the u.s. has already done something no other american men's soccer team has ever done -- reached the finals of a fifa-sanctioned event. today on espn, they can upset mighty brazil to win the gold. now, i'm not about to compare this to the 1980 u.s. hockey team, but we're talking a major upset in the making. brazil is in its fourth confederations final and looking for a record third title. last week i spoke with espn's soccer analyst and former national team member, alexi lalas, about the team's world cup chances, kind of shrugged his sho

thomas paine was so pleased with this new constitution that he even considered for applying for polish citizenship. however, katherine the great said if the poles freed their serfs my serfs will want to be free and they all attacked poland at once. now, kosciuszko, who had fought in the american revolution and was very impressed with the notion of minute men and militias explained to the poles that we need to have groups that are ready in different areas so we'll have our regular army but when the war goes to different regions, we should have local people ready. and at the time in poland 80% of the population were serfs. 10% were nobility and 10% were jews we need a regular army -- if we have a regular army made up of mostly peasants of no legal rights or government protection of our property and they will not feel ties in our company. if we have this militia of all classes, he wrote, especially the nobles should be represented in the same proportion as peasants, jews and those with no complete ties now in our country. so essentially he was telling the nobility we need to give guns to

i'm proud to be able to introduce to you the honorable thomas h. dupri jr., former deputy assistant attorney general of the united states. mr. dupri is a graduate of williams college as well as the university of chicago law school, who once clerked for jerry smith at the fifth circuit court of appeals. in his private practice he played a key role in bush v. gore, more recently in his stint in the federal government he oversaw the civil division of the department of justice, including the civil appellate practice of justice. he's appeared in front of the supreme court and all 13 appeals courts. he's appeared before jouge sotomayor in the second circuit court. i'm interested in what he has to say, i hope you all are as well. let's give him a warm welcome to the dallas chapter, tom dupri. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you very much for inviting me here today and thank you, dan, for the kind introduction. it's always a pleasure for me to return to texas. as he mentioned, i clerked a little bit down the road in houston. it's wonderful to come back

much more conservative members of the court, chief justice rehnquist, justice scalia and justice thomas issuing the procurer am that was an on signed for the court the authorship later became evident was kennedy's and was only because kennedy and o'connor were comfortable with the equal protection aspect that is is every boat being counted like every other vote which clearly was not the case that they were able to muster the five votes even though there is one place in the opinion that says seven of asa agreed and those of less that scrambled out in front of the court afterwards found out and said perhaps momentarily it is seven to two vote let me look, there are one, two, three, four dissenters in trying to parse out with this opinion was that it did come down to a question eventually and ultimately on how the ballots were being counted and there is a very short exchange between ted olson representing mr. bush and justice souter. >> [inaudible] what they have done is provide a process virtually impossible to have these issues resolved and the constitution controversy's resolved in time

justice scalia and thomas and then chief justice roberts and justice alito. so in this six-amendment con -- 6th amendment confrontation case which asked whether a defendant has a right to cross-examine the laboratory technician who did the analysis. so you have, you know what part of confrontation do you not understand from justice scalia and then three of the liberals, then you have the more pragmatic of the conservative side, chief justice roberts and justice alito joined by the pragmatic liberal, justice breyer and justice kennedy saying, you know, you're just going to create a huge mess in the crime labs and courtrooms of the country. but anyway, i didn't mean to -- >> no, no, that's great. that was the perfect segway. did you want to say anything? >> dvd, jan. >> this was another big case that raised all these themes, too, and it looks at the court's -- this case is kind of the last, the most recent and perhaps one of the most sweeping kind of decisions on the court's efforts in recent years to refine their jurisprudence on the confrontation clause which

in two cases, justice thomas and scalia actually voted the majority opinion. there were no such unusual lineups in the seven cases i am talking about. the five were the five you would expect, and the four were the of four you would expect. in six of the cases, the united states were part of it. in the other cases, the party supported one, said the united states was six in one in antitrust telecom environmental cases, which is a high success rate, even for the united states, which enjoys even more success in the supreme court than any other. .

one man who did it do this as f-ing thomas pointed out was ronald reagan. and i want you to listen to this contrast because it's interesting. listen to the language. in 198722 years ago this week president reagan went to berlin and challenged the adversary the soviet union to take a step that would demonstrate they were serious about peace. he challenged them to do more than just talk. he stood in front of the berlin wall that separated the free world from the communist bloc and president reagan said, quote, general secretary gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the soviet union and eastern europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this date. mr. gorbachev, open this gate. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. last week in france president obama took a different approach. he demanded nothing of our current adversary, iran. he challenged them to do nothing saying instead, quote, we are ready for direct negotiations with the iranians on the whole range of issues without preconditions in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

keep control of the argument that they want to make because there are 9 justices, 8 because justice thomas doesn't participate in oral argument but there are at least 9 very smart people who have already done some thinking about the case and are coming to the argument completely prepared to befuddle you and indeed to drive the argument in the direction that they would very much like to do. it's important to remember the supreme court justices do not talk much about a case before they go into oral argument. so oral argument is really an agenda-setting moment. it really does shape at least the opening of the conversation that the justices will have when they go back behind the curtains and decide how they're going to vote initially on this case. so a lawyer who really wants to shape that argument, who wants to put some -- some control on the first argument that the justices are going to have among themselves must keep control of their argument. it was very apparent from the early part of the argument and the book has an excerpt from justice o'connor saying well, i don't want you to talk abou

' name on it as a dissent because it doesn't read like a clarence thomas dissent. you look like you want to jump in. >> i think, just having listened to the chief justice and trying to explain what he meant by deciding cases on more narrow ground, looking for greater consensus, i think that this case is one that you can easily read as a perfect example, whether by intention or just by results, of what the chief justice was talking about doing. it's quite extraordinary on this incredibly devicive and significant itch that we had eight justices speaking with one voice, including some of the more liberal justices, who are willing to sign an opinion that says the voting rights act raises serious section 5 and serious constitutional concerns. now, granted stepped back from taking that next step and striking down provisions of that act as some had urged the court to do. but it's a pretty extraordinary product when you look at this decision and think about how this court has spoken. and then you can contrast it to the case that linda mentioned from a few terms ago in the

thomas? >> i think it has been an open process. >> that is one of the problems i hope@@@@@@@@@ @ r7dn 3 of the documents this is a power point presentation. after looking at, this would be the criteria you said you using? can we have copies made to give to everyone here? >> since you have received your to letters, has anybody from either company, chrysler or gm, come to you and said we want to explain why we have done what we have done, and we want to give you a chance to show us the error of our ways, and if you wish to continue business relationship, here is what you need to do? >> no, they have not. do? >> no. they have not. >> mr. henderson and mr. press, do think it would be reasonable business practice to give dealers said in some cases have decades of relationships with the companies that you had some opportunity to know why they were evaluated the way they were and give them an opportunity to show why they may have been evaluated unfairly? >> yes, sir. i would like to add that because

name on it because it doesn't mean like a clarence thomas' dissent. jann, you look like you want to jump in. >> i think having listened to the chief justice and talking about how i've tried to explain what he meant by deciding cases on a more narrow ground, looking for a greater consensus. i think that this case is one that you could easily read as a perfect example whether by intention or by results of what the chief justice was talking about doing. is quite an extraordinary in this incredibly divisive a significant issue that we have a justice is speaking with one voice including some of the more liberal justices who are willing to sign an opinion that says the voting rights act resister recession five in serious constitutional concerns. now granted day as linda said it stepped back from taking that next up in striking back imprisons of that act as some had urged the court to do, but it is i think a pretty extraordinary product when you look at this decision and think about how this court has spoken. and then you can contrasted to the case that lind

i would be surprised if she sided with justice scalia and thomas on that. but you're not bound by supreme court precedent in the same way you are as an appeals court judge. so the jury is still out on that. as far as her role in tax formation and capital formation -- >> [inaudible] >> she -- there, too, she'll have an immense amount of experience. she was in the drirkt of new york, they hear a lot of these. from what i've seen, she's taken more of a pro-plaintiff view, more of a pro-shareholder view in some of these cases. so based on her past record, that's where i'd anticipate her coming in, stouget the usual qualifications of once again on the supreme court all bets are off but based on her track record that's the approach she seems to have taken to date. any other questions? i think there's one in the back there. >> you mentioned judge wood and kagen. do you think they're on the short list, looking down the road, for when justice stevens retires or justice ginsburg, what's the scuttlebutt about who would be on the short list for those spots? >> let me f

ed thomas coached for 37 years. he had a career record of 292-84, including two state championships, 19 state playoff appearances and get this, in a town of 280 students in high school, four of his students played in the national football league. coach thomas said, we don't talk about winning and losing, we talk about the little things. if we take care of the little things, the rest will take care of itself. mr. speaker, i will be asking for everyone to give their thoughts and prayers to ed's wife, jan, their extended community and the -- family and the community of parkersburg as they struggle for this senseless loss. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: one area of smoking prevention remains unchallenged. smoking in the movies. studies have shown that viewing smoking in the movies normalizes smoking among youth. it

i believe it's judge sotomayor, not the justices scalia and thomas, who are wrong. under her approach, a yuj is free -- has free rein to survey the world to find what they might consider to be good ideas, and then impose these views on the american people calling it "law." however, this is not the american system. our system requires judges to adhere to this constitution. to the statutes and to the legal precedent, to the end that justices follow the will of the people of our country, as expressed in our law. the constitution says we do ordain and establish this constitution of the united states, not some other. judges aren't free to amend it by citing some other foreign constitution. i think this is a big deal. so they're not -- judges aren't free to indulge their own personal opinions about what good policy is. judges don't set policy. and to search for support for that in foreign law. despite judge sotomayor's claim at a duke law school panel discussion that -- quote -- -- f appeals is where policies is made. judges are not policy-makers. they are servants of the

, you know, what part of confrontation don't you understand from justice scalia joined by justice thomas and then three of the liberals, justice ginsburg, souter and stevens and the more pragmatic of the conservative side, roberts and alito, joined by the the pragmatic liberal, breyer and kennedy, saying, you know, you're just going to create a huge mess in the crime labs and courtrooms of the country. anyway, i didn't want -- >> no, that's great. it was the perfect segue. . this case came about when he was arrested for having cocaine and charged with possession and distribution. so the state at his trial introduced a lab report that said yes, that white stuff in that little baggy that he stuffed under the seat in the cruiser was in fact cocaine, and yes, it was this amount of cocaine in that bag. the issue was whether or not that after the was ok, was that testimonyial evidence, did you need someone to come in and testimony on that? and the supreme court in its decision by justice scalia said yes they are testimonyial evidence, and analysts can be witnesses. i am not sure that the votin

so i will continue to work on reading thomas jefferson's letters. i always had a particular fascination with history so i will continue to read works by a number of different authors. one i'm working through right now is james mcpherson's book on lincoln's role as commander in chief during the civil war, which i have found particularly relevant to the debate going on today with the outrage by liberal about george w. bush's use of interrogation of these killers at guantanamo, which has saved lives in fact. dropping a cat pillar in a box with a terrorist is not any idea of torture and frank live its a choice of diking a guy's head in water and saving the lives of americans, i would dip the guy's head. and abraham lincoln exercised incredible power in his authority as commander-in-chief, which is what frankly george bush has done, president bush took his role as commander in chief very seriously and used the very broad grant of authority given to the president by constitution to interrogate these killers and find out what they're up to and save lives,

now thomas jefferson is seen here in the most famous portrait of him in addition to that if you go down to the jefferson memorial you will see jefferson is also portrayed wearing this fur coat. now it wasn't just blacks, jews and peasants that kosciuszko stood up for but he also stood up for the native americans when he saw the founding fathers began murdering them and pushing them west. well this is chief little turtle who showed up in kosciuszko's room in philadelphia with a present. a combination tomahawk and peace pipe and he gave kosciuszko this peace pipe and said i hear the your a righteous white man standing up for everybody so we want to show you that we appreciate this. well, kosciuszko saw chief little turtle was squinting so he gave him his glasses and chief little turtle put on the glasses and said my got to have given me new highs. and kosciuszko also gave him his jacket and then he gave to pistols and said these pistols i've carried and used on many hard fought battle fields in defense of the oppressed, the week, the rahm of my own race. i now present them to you with the

he gets to the podium and takes a question from helen thomas. robert gibbs gets up there, says, the president believes that judge sotomayor's life story is a compelling one and her voice will be an important addition to the supreme court. then he calls on helen thomas. question, did she pay her taxes? mr. gibbs said, pardon me? question, did she pay her taxs? mr. gibbs, well, i have not seen anything on that. in fairness, i should know -- i should note that it appears jouge sotomayor has paid her taxes, so there's some complain that she's had life experiences other obama nominees have not. there were more serious issues that emerged in the rollout process two. issues concerned comments she made not in the context of a written judicial opinion but comments she made in articles. the first was her statement she made at berkeley law school where she said, i would hope that a wise latino woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white man who hasn't lived that life hsm second was at duke la

thomas, which led to begin.pull the mike over thomas began to its so we can hear you and i can pick it up. >> thank-you, chairman stupak. [inaudible] >> is or might on a price -- is your my god? >> thank you. may 15, 11:00 a.m., employs watch as a driver has with thin cardboard envelope that contains our destiny. i received an unsigned letter from general motors, the total was vague and referred to criteria but not specific methodology neither stating the relative importance of regional how great a time was being referenced. the letter stated quote, we don't think we'll be able to renew your contract

he gave that fur coat to thomas jefferson. now thomas jefferson is seen here and the most famous portrait of him but in addition to that if you go down to the jefferson memorial you will see jefferson is portrayed wearing this fur coat. now, it was not just blacks, jews and peasants that kosciuszko stood up for. he also stood up for the native americans when they saw the founding fathers began murdering them and pushing them west. this is chief little turtle who showed up in kosciuszko's room in philadelphia with the present. it was a combination tomahawk and peace pipe and he gave kosciuszko this piece by bennie said i hear you are this righteous white man who is standing up for everybody's so we wanted to show you we appreciate this. kosciuszko saab that chief little turtle was squinting so he gave him his glasses and chief little turtle put on these glasses and said my god you have given me new the eyes. kosciuszko also gave him his jacket and then he gave him two pistols and he said, these pistols i have carried and used o

a lawyer told us that they were worried that he would have preferred justice thomas's descent, which gave schools deference to do these searches. it really kind of walked a pretty narrow line. that is the implication of that. >> if they are wrong and they do the search, they now get sued. >> right, because now the law is clear. we will talk about qualified immunity and that issue. john has a couple of cases you will be talking about. school officials are on notice that you cannot do the kind of strip search that school officials did in arizona. # @@@@@@@@ outlawed it. at any rate, the bigger theme, which i'm sorry i'm getting off on a tangent here, but the bigger theme about the role of a justice, and i think ginsburg obviously made some difference in this case and in covering the court over the years, i mean, whether sotomayor is right or whether o'connor is right, there is no question that justices' perspectives, obviously, as you all know from appearing or arguing before the court or being on an appeals court, your perspective and experiences can make a difference. one of the my f

justice stevens wrote the opinion, and he was joined by justice scalia, sutor, thomas and me. careful listeners would have noticed that i emerged in these cases as the swing justice. [laughter] >> the only member of the court in the majority in all three of those 5-4 decisions. among most-watched case that is did not come to us from the second circuit, i picked three, wyatt v. lavigne, caperton v.a.c. massy coal company, and northwest austin municipal utility district v. holder. wyatt had a predecessor the year before in rigov. med tronnic. the court held 8-1 that f.d.a.'s regime for medical divines pre-empted all state law -- devices pre-empted all state law taught suits -- the f.d.a. allowed to be marketed caused physical injuries. i was the lone dissenter in that case. wyeth v. lavigne involved drugs rather than devices, and the absence of a preemings clause in that statute -- pre-emption clause in that statute proved as positive. tort laws and the state law could be maintained the court held 6-3, claims for inadequate warnings on drug labels. caperton v.a.t. massy coal com

it is fascinating to see cases where justice thomas -- where we see his powerful dissent. there are cases where he has had an influence in shaping law that we do not normally think about. he made quite a mark on that supreme court after his dissent. he is often alone. there are areas of the law where he has shaped it quite significantly as in the confrontation clause. >> we have to move on. sorry. we would love to see more. could you take into some case procedure? >> yes. this is a case about civil procedure. i'd like to make the case that this is perhaps the most important case of the term practically. it gives us the strongest window into the teachings of the roberts court. it comes other of the terrorism context. it follows someone who was picked up after 9/11. he was treated in an improper way because he is a muslim. the court was of the a on looking at civil procedure. it rejects the claim because the argument is civil procedure requires that a plaintiff having a short statement of claim showing the pleaders willies. justice kennedy says there is nothing in the compla

. >> it would be hard to find a coach, teacher, or leader more beloved than ed thomas.d down last week in a school weight room the questions have yet to be answered as to why a pillar of the parkers berg, iowa community, would be gunned down in cold blood. on monday, more than 1,800 mourners gather to lay the former nfl high school coach of the year to rest. among those in attendance were members of the football teams from across iowa who were all dressed in their football jerseys. he also coached a number of players who went on to the nfl including four of whom served as pallbearers on monday. thomas was a high school head coach for 37 years. 34 of those at appleton, parkers berg. it was obvious on monday that the lessons he taught would live on forever. >> you can tell how many people he touched. it wasn't just us and it wasn't just the students. it was people across iowa and people across the country that he touched. his legacy will live forever. >> we wouldn't have missed it obviously. ed has been a tremendous influence in my own life. and, you know, he just meant s

[applause] we can recall the words of thomas jefferson who said i hope our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be. today america has a dual responsibility to help iraq for in better future and to lead iraq to iraqis. i have made it clear to the iraqi people -- [applause] i have made it clear to the iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. iraq's sovereignty is its own. that is why i ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next august. that is why we will honor our agreement with their democratically elected government to remove combat troops from iraqi cities by july. and to remove all of our troops from iraq by 2012. [applause] we will help iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. we will support and secure a united iraq as a partner and

oath to defend the constitution is in the same hole in dhahran that one of our founding fallers, thomas jefferson -- the same holy koran that one of our founding fathers, thomas jefferson, had in his library. [applause] i have known isislam on three continents. that experience? my conviction that a partnership between america and islam must be based on what it is not what it is not. i consider part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam wherever they appear. [applause] but that same principle must apply to muslim perceptions of america. [applause] just as muslims do not fit a stereotype, america is not the crude stereotype of a self interested empire. the united states has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. we were born out of revolution against an empire. we were founded upon the idea that all are created equal. we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words. within our borders and around the world, we are shaped and drawn from every culture and end fro

but john left the capital city before the inauguration of thomas jefferson. he left at six in the morning, at daybreak, and didn't stay for the inoculation of jefferson. he was so hurt. not only by losing office, but his son, his second son had just died. his son died the day -- he learned that his son died the same day that he learned that jefferson won the presidency. he was not a happy camper that day so he didn't stick around. other questions?

what jefferson did was first of all, wrote a letter to thomas paine who had written a book about the french revolution, extolling the french revolution and jefferson's letter of sympathy for thomas paine got appended to the introduction of that book when it was published in america, and everyone knew it was the criticism of that dems. the person who really knew it was the criticism of adams was adams said that made him very angry, this man of great passion. and then, jefferson did write a couple of letters that got published in this-- in the journals of the time which were critical of adams and adam saw that as a betrayal. and, he did things that we expect politicians to do in our age, but which we don't think our founding fathers and mothers engaged in that kind of politics. the second component to your question was, what was abigail's role? in campaigning for the presidency. abigail was not happy that john either took the vice presidency or the presidency but like everything else she went along with it because he had a duty to serve and she had a duty to serve as well. so it was th

tell us about that. >> virginia thomas is an old friend of mine. she is a friend of mine of long standing, she is not that old. she is married to clarence thomas, and he is a man i admire very greatly and have known since before he was known to many other people. i think highly of him and very highly of her. i have had this idea for a long time, since the beginning of the claremount institute days that there are things you should know to call yourself a leader in america. you can find those things in correspondence between jefferson and madison, for example, who laid out a curriculum. people not know those things very much anymore. another thing that is going on that i think requires explanation. we think the declaration of independence is the first deck in a development, and so is the constitution. they are good, they are great, but they all -- the signal virtue they have is that they allow for this development. and so they live. the trouble is that things can be done in their name that are obvious abnegations of what they mean. the trouble with t

>> guest: lewis' relationship with thomas jefferson. i love writing about thomas jefferson, and he had a very special relationship with meriwether lewis. they were neighbors. lewis' father died when lewis was very young, but he had been a friend of jefferson's. then lewis was jefferson's secretary for two years, living with him in the white house, just the two of them. you know, jack kennedy had that great line, when he had the nobel prize winners for dinner at the white house. he said, "there has never been such a gathering of brains and talent in this house since thomas jefferson dined alone." the only thing wrong with that line is, thomas jefferson never dined alone. he dined with meriwether lewis. c-span: our guest has been stephen ambrose. you can find him at the university of new orleans, and a lot of other places, and this is what his newest book looks like, "d-day, june 6, 1944: the climactic battle of world war ii." we thank you for joining us. >> guest: thanks for having me. stephen ambrose pass delay in 2002. tiananmen number

you sometimes have the impression obama is giving the best advice that because it consists of thomason and alexander hamilton and abraham lincoln with whom some but compulsively identifies. so there is this a sense at we i think the founding fathers because the debate what america was to become, the possibility of america. america was founded as an act of separation from the of vice and misdemeanors and errors of the miserable old world of so many. it would be a new thing in the world. there would be a place in which you would become an american perspective of the class simply by virtue of subscribing to the great space ideal of freedom on less of course, all this, you were black. [laughter] something that is now at last the art of genuine hypocrisy. so there is a sense of which history matters. it matters deeply in america and it matters out of the crushing and i mean this of the social studies curriculum textbook. part two of the campaign there are subscription envelopes in the back. we have all abolished social studies. we are moving on to abolish the textbook. anyone within the h

as american history, civics and government teachers will probably know that, of course, thomas jefferson and john adams both died within hours of each other on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the declaration of independence. the other interesting back to about that i think is that you could ask how long was jefferson and adams and american citizen? there were no american citizens on july 3rd, 1776 cell mr. jefferson and mr. adams were both citizens for precisely to the day 50 years to the day. well, another one is now we talk about the top five founders in this case which was my interest because i am specifically attractive as an historian without the camera to the 1770 and 79 days' time because that is one of paradigm shifted. that is on the world changed. the other one that changed and died on july 4th was james monroe. he not only died on july 4th, no one talks about poor mr. munro, they just want jefferson and adams -- it is like red meat for the founders. [laughter] so mr. monroe died on the 50th anniversary of the signing. it's almost as if the wheels of their death. then le

the faction of fruit growers who objected to thomas campaign arguing the case were so upset that they filed a malpractice suit against him. and one of their counts was that it was malpractice for him to fail to refer the case to a supreme court specialist and i thought in a symbolic way that really symbolized the supreme court speciality bar had arrived. it was deemed so objectively better than the run-of-the-mill lawyer that it even became the basis of a malpractice suit. the suit didn't succeed. there was a settlement. but it seemed to symbolize that sometimes it does really matter to have a good supreme court advocate on your side. >> thank you, tony. well, at this point i'll ask questions of our esteemed panelists and we'll talk a little bit more about oral arguments. so i'll start with a question for dahlia. you concluded your chapter with the comment that an outsider could prevail over a polished insider because of his passion to win. so, for instance, some of the examples you gave he violated the command not to use sound effects and so he said bam at one point or cause the cour

i want to recognize the dealers including constituent of organ second district, bob thomas of thomas chevrolet cadillac. at bob and the rest of the dealers have taken time and expense to travel to washington and provide us with their perspective on the issue and i welcome mr. press of chrysler and mr. henderson from general motors, we're honored to have you here today as well. we have hard questions and i appreciate your willingness to come here today and explain your situation, your perspective with clear and straight answers. since american taxpayers on sister% of general motors we have a right to know just how the decisions affecting our constituents are made. we have a duty to make this process more accountable and trans parents were all concerned. so let's start with a look at the customer service. mr. henderson, you spend pretty large sum of money on newspaper ads recently and i'm sure you're familiar with their own ads proclaiming concern for greater transparency and customer service. yet you have dictated the closure of gm dealerships across organic and the country and it was

thomas jefferson, the man that wrote all men are created equal on slaves. and kosciuszko thought he was a hypocrite. kosciuszko end of serving the rest of the war in the carolinas where he developed the report with slaves and the sovereign states. he brought grippy and the friendship helped him out and kosciuszko was drawn to other continental soldiers were also abolitionists. one of them was colonel lawrence, outspoken opponent of slavery but when he was killed the other men started taking off his clothes and kosciuszko wrote to general green who was the commanding officer that this was mean and low thinking and the two negro's belonging to lawrence r. naked and wash shirts, jackets, breeches and their skin can bear as well as ours good things. kosciuszko was in charge now of south carolina and basically surrounding and putting the stranglehold on charleston. and the way he kept track was going on in charleston was he had black spies of going to charleston and come back and tell which people were loyalists and which people work with the rebels. even shible

a deterrent, and now in the city of burrny, a view of congress' 14th amendment power and justice thomas articulates this in his dissenting opinion, prof lax sis is outside congress' authority. congress has authority to remedy, not to deter. so it's a fascinating issue, and i don't think congress is institutionally capable of satisfying the supreme court no heart what the supreme court says and no matter what congress does. i think the issue will come back and be joined either by this court or by the roberts court as it evolves over time. >> linda, thank you. let's move now to another area of the court's doctrine. this is an area which has been very prominent in the present term,s and that the question whether state tort lawsuits are preempted either by federal statutes or by the actions of federal agencies, and that's surfaced in two very important cases this term. 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

thomas, which led to begin. a pull the mike over thomas began to its so we can hear you and i can pick it up. >> thank-you, chairman stupak. [inaudible] >> is or might on a price -- is your my god? >> thank you. may 15, 11:00 a.m., employs watch as a driver has with thin cardboard envelope that contains our destiny. i received an unsigned letter from general motors, the total was vague and referred to criteria but not specific methodology neither stating the relative importance of regional how great a time was being referenced. the letter stated quote, we don't think we'll be able to renew your contract in october 2010, this is not final, similar to live by the end of the month to this e-mail address. the significance of this became clear on june 2 when the content of the big letter have been construed into the offer of a wine that agreement. the agreement offered on the second had to be returned in time to arrive in detroit by the 12th, a scant 10 days to dede once options to confer with professionals regarding

thomas has had people.anybody who has a good viable business. >> could there have been a different strategy or what if you weren't meeting the goals that general motors set for you, you could've been given time to sell your dealership? did they give you an opportunity to change up what it was? >> no, sir. >> and when they have evaluated you in the past of the adversary if you don't do these seven things, next reauthorization were not going to be there for you? >> no, sir, they didn't. and outside of bankruptcy they couldn't say that. that's why they wouldn't. >> my time is expired. thank you. >> thank you to mr. dingell, for questions, please. >> we have a very difficult business here. we have to decide how we are going to protect the rights of the dealers and at the same time see to it that we restructure our american automobile industry so that we save the rest of the dealers, as many other workers as we can, the jobs and the communities that are affected. first of all, to mr. peres and mr. hendrick. do y

justice thomas added a concurring opinion saying i just don't believe in this implied preemption at all. if we're going to hold that the federal government can do something to prevent states from regulating something, congress is going to have to be specific about it. we're just not going to assume that the states don't have power to do this sort of thing. the issues that these cases bring up that go first with respect to what are the words used by congress to cause the preemption? the court goes into great lengths distinguishing between preemption because of the claim is based upon a certain type of conduct or whether it relates to a certain type of conduct and whether that choice of language by congress -- and there's very little debate ever about which actual words are going to be used, how much difference it will make, and then whether or not there will be a preemption based upon a broad, general prohibition like an unfair practices act or whether it has to be specific. so the court is going back and forth about that. i'll just make this one final -- two final points. if you really