that's what don verrilli is. in addition to being an extraordinary lawyer, he has these incredible personal skills and he is an incredible problem solver. and, and he has this sort of total professionalism and integrity that, of course, the best lawyers have. and i see that all the time. i hear about it. you know, i was sg myself and i got to know the folks in the sg's office pretty well, and still talk to them. and i sort of hear stuff about what's going on in the solicitor general's office and i have to say i get sometimes a little bit envious because everybody in the solicitor general's office talk about don like they have never seen his like and i kind of think, well, what was i? you know? chopped liver? you know? but the way that the people in the solicitor general's office feels about don is such a testament to what leadership can be. and then, in the court we see not only month in and month out his fantastic lawyering skills, but also, this kind of consummate professionalism and integrity and i just tell y

verrilli, i want to switch gears a little. justice kagan talked about your integrity. how dok and the hatred, we inspire those outside of our profession to follow in the best tradition of public service and bring those people up? the best and brightest on both sides of the aisle to do what we do is lawyers. >> i feel a particular obligation to do it now because i do think that -- and i have encountered this one i have talked to young people, law students in particular. to take reluctance chances. taking on pro bono or public .nterest they are concerned it would be held against them. and every now and then, you actually do see and we have recently seen a situation where it has come back to bite somebody. what i say to them is what i would say to you, that we can communicate to younger lawyers that that is exactly the wrong lesson to draw, even in this poisonous climate. maybe especially because of this poisonous climate. i am 100% morally certain that i here and be ap up having justice kagan delivering the introduction and i would not have this position had i not done t

general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the touchstone for resolving this case is the principle justice jackson articulated in prince v. massachusetts. as he said, "limitations which of necessity bound religious freedom begin to operate whenever activities begin to affect or collide with the liberties of others or of the public. adherence to that principle is what makes possible the harmonious functioning of a society like ours, in which people of every faith live and work side by side." >> that's a statement that is inconsistent with rfra, isn't it? the whole point of rfra is that congress wanted to provide exceptions for the religious views of particular -- including proprietors, individuals. >> no, mr. chief justice, i don't think so at all. in fact, the although i was of course, i was referring to justice jackson's words for their wisdom because it wasn't the opinion of the court. but see, jackson -- >> yeah. but the wisdom you cited is the idea that you don't have imposed, on

don er haverrilli in the courtr with us, you know, don verrilli, assistants, spectators who are keenly interested in this like art and lawrence gold who's very interested in the union decision on monday. and you can see how they react and i remember during the course of the health care ruling, we were both noticed that don verrilli tightens it sounds when the government lost and then loosen up and chief justice roberts says, no, you won. you get a lot and as adam observed, it is a cost if you're the only one up there for the news organization. >> right. there are other times that really dramatic moments especially in the announcement of decision, you are not the only one. one, was for example, the schutte decision, the affirmative action decision, on a day that's a heavily covered case. i want to say cell phone searches. >> aerial. >> on the day of aerial. >> susan b. anthony first which is a real case and then the decision lands. >> and then announce the decision and justice sotomayor gives a first dissent from the bench and it's -- it was actually quite a powerful dissent and it was

after that, solicitor general donald verrilli discusses his top role as the government's lawyer. later former secretary janet napolitano talks about education policy. next a discussion on the impact of the splooem supreme court decision on the can traception mandate in the health care law. from washington journal, this is 40 minutes. >>> joining us now, pro choice america, their president, welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> we are here to talk in part about the decisions made by the supreme court last week. first of all with hobby lobby, what happened? what is your perspective? >> my perspective is i am disturbed. what we saw were five male judges essentially say that discrimination against women is not discrimination at all. what happened is that the court decided in favor of a private corporation saying that our religious beliefs trump the civic doubt we have to provide comprehensive health care for all of our employees. this was coming on the heels of there are administration and the country acknowledging if you are truly a religious institution, are you exempt from this.

>> general verrilli, i want to switch gears a little. justice kagan talked about your integrity, and as you know i know that from personal experience, but my question for you as lawyers, given the gridlock and the hatred that's in washington, how do we inspire young people in our profession and outside our profession to follow in the best tradition of public service and bring those people, the best and the brightest, on both sides of the aisle, to really do what we do as lawyers which is uphold the rule of all? how do we do that? how do we inspire young people to do that? >> the best way for me to answer that question is actually just talk about my own life as a lawyer. and i feel a particular obligation to do it now because i do think that, and i encountered this would talk to young people, law students in particular, there is a bit of reluctance on the part of young people, young lawyers, to take chances, take risks, and in particular take risks in taking on pro bono or public interest representations or work, however you define it bec