v. sullivan.hank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i speak to did it operating under a number of disadvantages. [laughing] first, i suspect many of you have already made up your mind on the question we are debating, should the press be restrained, and i'm facing an uphill battle to convince you that it should not, at least any further than it already is. second, although i speak last today, my remarks are of necessity drafted before i was made privy to exactly what either libby or arthur was good to say. as a result while i will offer my general perceptions on the issue, please forgive me if injuries i do not respond directly to one or another of their arguments. in a limited time i have i would like to emphasize three points. one about history, one about reality, and what about constitutional law. i would like to do so largely by invoking the words and insights of others in words and insights of which i happen to agree. first, history. arthur has as i suspected he would set a great deal about hi

v. gore in 2000. elizabeth: one of the significant duties of a chief justice, he was a big gilbert and sullivan fan.n asked what he did or how he perceived his role presiding at the senate trial, he said you know i did nothing in particular and i did it very well. so i think he did not relish the role. to the point we have been talking about all morning the , issue of where the courts work in the role following the government, chief justice rehnquist did, and coming out of the impeachment proceedings on what he termed sort of tongue-in-cheek, the relative order of the supreme court as against the free-form environment in the senate. and he was happy go back to the court. host: let me stay with that for a minute because it is all the town's thinking about now. usa today from october of this year. a little historical note that late chief justice rehnquist was a busy man on generate 20, 1999. the impeachment trial of bill clinton was in the second week. he had to stop presiding over oral archivist moves the senate to reside of the trial. one of the lawyers are going be for the high court that it was jo

v. gore in elizabeth: one of the significant duties of a chief justice, he was a big gilbert and sullivan. when asked what he did or how he perceived his role presiding at the senate trial, he said you know i did nothing in particular and i did it very well. so i think he did not relish the role. to the point we have been talking about on morning, the issue of where the courts work in the role following the government, chief justice rehnquist did, and coming out of the impeachment proceedings on what he termed sort of tongue-in-cheek, the relative order of the supreme court as against the three free-form environment in the senate. and he was happy go back to the court. host: let me stay with that for minute because it is all the town's thinking about now. usa today from october of this year. historical note that the late chief justice way and rank west was a busy man on generate 20, 1999. the impeachment trial of bill clinton was in the second week. rank west had to stop presiding over oral archivist moves the senate to reside of the trial. one of the lawyers are going be for the high cou