Support the historical practice and you have this substantial historical practice. The hyster practice accelerated over time and you can see examples going back to george appointments that would not qualify under the court of appeals ruling. As time has gone on, there has been more and more. How much weight do you give history . How can you allocate authority between the residents and the senate . It will be an interesting case to follow. Let me make one tiny little point. What is old is new again. Most of the work done on the question of intercession and when the recess has to occur was done by democrats, including me. I wrote to senator canty challenging recess appointments by president bush. The republican judges rejected our argument. Now the shoes have been completely reversed. Do you have an opinion or if theur brief address court agrees with the dc circuit , then what is the effect on going backwards . I think one of the appointments challenged i senator kennedy was a judge sitting on the 11th circuit. Would the majority decisions be questioned . [laughter] not what thetually case presents britt i dont think its an issue we will get to if the court rules that way. It will have to be confronted but i dont think it will be wrestled through directly. Constitutional power is the treaty power. The next case asks what the limits are on the power of congress to implement treaties. Some treaties are selfexecuting and others require the congress after the senate has approved a treaty to pass a statute to implement its provisions. Most courts have read a case from 1920 that holds if a statute is implementing a valid treaty, the statute is necessarily valid. One case concerns the statute that implements the 1993 convention on the prohibition of the development of and stockpiling of chemical weapons. It is a treaty concerned with the terrorists and rogue states. Case also concerns the meaning of this 1920 case, missouri versus holland. Depending on the courts reading, that maybe another instance where this Court Overrules a prior decision. With these complex constitutional legal issues, they arose from a domestic discipli dispute. One woman found that she was pregnant and her husband was the father. She flipped out. Decided to make her friends life a living hell. And she was a microbiologist and naturally she decided to do this using some chemicals. She took some from her place of work and ordered some on amazon. She put the chemicals on the friends car and door knobs and mailbox. She also took some mail from her friends mailbox. At this point, she was not really a friend. [laughter] more of an acquaintance. Her friend suffered a minor rash. The chemicals were easy to see and wipe up of her friend got a rash on her thumb. The evidence is that she intended to cause irritation and discomfort but that she did not intend serious harm. Listed locald police but did not know what to do. Taken so shebeing asked the post office to set up surveillance and found out that carol bond was behind this. You might expect the local police to take over but instead, federal prosecutors got involved. I assume thats because the post office. She did not engage in activities in violation of the chemical weapons treaty. Her actions did not involve Chemical Warfare or stockpiling of chemical weapons but the prosecutors charged her with using unconventional weapons in violation of the statute that Congress Passed to implement the treaty. She argued to dismiss. She said the statute exceeds congresss constitutional powers in article one, section eight, and invaded the powers reserved to the state in the 10th amendment. She called the statute a massive and unjustified expansion of federal Law Enforcement in a state regulated domain. The court of appeals rejected her argument and said missouri versus holland, the 1920 case, if congress enacted a statute to enact a valid treaty, it was acting within its authority. Before the Supreme Court, she reiterates this argument that the statute is unconstitutional if it is applied to such a local crime. Theargues that the power of statue to implement a treaty cannot bring with it the power to enact a law in disregard of other constitutional limitations. Government says the have a federal law that criminalized her conduct in the absence of the treaty, they conductriminalize her under a statute implementing a treaty. Also argued the statute could be read not to cover her crime at all and that the Supreme Court read it that way, it would have to reach the constitutional each issue. The plainly falls under scope of the statute and that it is constitutional because the the two that implements treaty is constitutional even if it covers some local subject matters that it would not otherwise address. Sayswise, the government the u. S. Would be hamstrung in negotiating treaties and the confidence of other countries in the United States as a Global Partner would be undermined. A red line, if you will. [laughter] no comments. The government also makes an argument now that it did not make out the trial level. It made in the court of appeals. The argument is that the provision of the statute is valid under congresss Commerce Clause power which is the power to enact laws that regulate the flow of goods among the states and chemicals are sold in interstate commerce like these which are not illegal weapons. This argument was not addressed in the opening brief because bonds position is that it was waived so it is a ear bones description but the government portrays the case differently. The government explains the two chemicals used have the rare ability to cause toxic harm to individuals with minimal topical contact and one half a teaspoon of one of them could be lethal. Shegovernment says that attempted to poison the friend with these chemicals at least one to four times over the course of 24 months. Substance on the mailbox and the door to her home and car in sufficient quantities to be lethal. To these additional details, expect the answer to the constitutional question. Shebrief for bond explained was under incredible stress. Her hair was falling out. It had a devastating effect on her mental health. Her conduct was completely out of character for her. Affect the answer to the constitutional question . Probably not but like all good breeze, they portray the most sympathetic light of their client even if it does not have the legalnswer to question and the courts decision. They would probably portray the facts which are most sympathetic to the outcome it is going for. Filed andfiles were the argument is scheduled for november 5. In terms of the implications of the case, i take it that a lot of treaties we enter into, there would be some other power that would allow congress to implement them. There are some like treaties ifut Domestic Violence that congress has the power to implement, it will have to come from the treaty . I will talk about a case involving the Clean Air Act briefly because it will keep us on time and it is impossibly complicated. This is a case called homer. There are two cases and they involve the transport rule. It involves downstream air pollution. We hear the idea that there may be states in the midwest or the northern part of a country where there is heavy industrialization or coalfired power plants and emissions from those plants can travel within that state but to other states as well. The Clean Air Act addresses many things including that. Went about trying to figure out how to regulate the emissions that go from one state to another. This is why you need a federal law. A state is unlikely to regulate itself to protect another state. The epa put a series of restrictions on these up when the states on the amount of pollution that could leave that state and would end up in another state. Challenges to of those regulations issued by the epa. Deals with the question of whether the epa can set the rules or the states themselves are going to set the rules and some technical questions about whether these claims were brought in time in the first instance. Beyond the Clean Air Act, there is one other feature of this case. Aboutll have heard whether we will appoint new judges and additional judges to the dc circuit and the question of whether it needs new judges or not. There is also the notion that the dc circuit is the second most Important Court in the country not because it sits in a hierarchy of the judiciary. It is that these hugely consequential cases involving the federal government are brought in that court. The recess appointment court went there, the epa case. You can see why it is there are such political struggles over the appointment to that court. Lets turn to fair housing. You followed, if an earlier season of the Supreme Court, you know there was an exciting episode that took lace and burlington county, new jersey. Tom here was involved arguing stripase involving the search of a prisoner in burlington county. This is a different type of issue coming from the same location, the county seat of purling 10 county, called mount urbanand it involves an renewal type program. The town of mount holly wants to has begun to bulldoze a neighborhood called the mount Holly Gardens and build new housing there. They fill the area is lighted and there is a lot of crime there. They want it improved. Mount Holly Gardens neighborhood is also the one part of town which is a minority neighborhood. Under a federal fair housing laws, one cannot discriminate against people based on race. When theu determine protections of those fair housing laws go into effect . A number of residents of the mount Holly Gardens neighborhood in that town sued to stop this redevelopment project from going forward. They argued that it violated fair housing laws because the people who were bearing the impact of this development were disproportionately minorities. Under the way the fair housing law and other antidiscrimination laws have developed over the decades is there are different ways you can see whether their protections are triggered. It stopped history, being fashionable to say we just like discrimination. Of segregation and will adopt rules that discriminate against people of color. That stopped being the thing that politicians could announce. For a long time, it was the kind of thing that helped politicians win elections. Since officials who make these decisions no longer are outwardly declaring that is what they want to do, how do you find out if that is what is really going on . The doctrine that has been developed is known as disparate impact for it if the policy that the agency is undertaking has a disparate impact on a protected class of people, often minority groups, then it may be illegal for them to proceed. Practicehis works in is an agency wants to do Something Like a redevelopment of this neighborhood, residents sue and they say it is a violation of fair housing and has a disparate impact on us and we are minorities and we are getting shafted again. If they can demonstrate there is a disparate impact, it does not mean the project cannot go forward. It means the city in this case has to show that it wants to do similar toe goal compelling goals in the affirmative action context and it has to show that there is not way to get to the same result without having a similar kind of impact on this protected group. Narrow similar to the tailoring of them remedies. Once the city raises that defense and says this is why we ise to do it this way, there no disparate impact on the no way to get to the same legitimate all without having it, then the burden shifts back to the other side. The residents would then have to say you are wrong because there are other ways that you can get where you want to go without bulldozing our houses. What the Third Circuit court of appeals said has to happen before mount holly can go ahead and complete this redevelopment project. Type ofparate impact process of heading the ball from one side to the other depending on what each side can prove has to be examined by the trial court before the city can go ahead with this project. Thecity has appealed to Supreme Court and they argue that no, this Third Circuit court of appeals and other federal Appeals Court have applied similar rules to this type of situation and have gotten it wrong. Theres a not have to be a disparate impact type of analysis before we can go forward. We cannot have intentional discrimination and we are not intending to target people because of their race but this type of burden you are placing on us is not required by the federal housing law or by the constitution and you cannot make us jump through these hoops before we complete the of thispment neighborhood. The court will look at that and has implications not only for housing law but also for other areas of antidiscrimination law, possibly including employment discrimination. The same type of test often arises when you have an employment discrimination lawsuit. It is hard to prove that someone is intentionally discriminating. The jargon that part uses of disparate impact smokes out eror miscible impermissible discriminatory actions. It could have implications even beyond housing into an and other areas of public policy. One little been yet about this question is that one that theynette is have been concerned about cases getting to the court that has rulings they dont favor. In this context, they have worked very hard behind the scenes to get the cases to go away. After the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, it can be settled or withdrawn up to the day they decide the case. There was a predecessor case to this one that i represented the disparate plaintiffs in with the possible involvement of the federal government. It became controversial and that case was settled after the court agreed to hear it and they have taken this followup case. There is a lot of pressure on the parties to this case to settle it before the justices can decide it as well. The settlement in this case would probably mean a payout to the residence to move. Case is called mccutchen versus federal election commission. My office filed an amicus supporting the government and the case. As in citizens united, the petitioners in mccutchen are overrule acourt to prior Court Decision in the area of campaign finance. The prior case was buckley versus vallejo and which the court upheld congress authority to up hold aggregate limits on individuals contributions to cook to prevent circumvention of the limits on donations to individual candidates. The aggregate limit today is about 125,000 on contributions to individuals during an election cycle. An individual can contribute to parties, pacs, or individuals. To twos a 74,600 limit year contributions and a 48,000 600 limit to candidate organizations. The individual position or the case is sean mccutchen. Man who gave a lot of money to individuals and parties during the last election cycle but he wanted to give more and had he given more, he would have exceeded the limit. Challenged the federal Election Campaign act arguing along with copetitioners, the Republican National committee, that the aggregate limits violate their First Amendment rights and should be eliminated because the resulting contributions will not be large enough to cause any concern. That is the issue before the Court Whether the aggregate limits, not the individual limits, but the aggregate limits violate the First Amendment. The concern is that the elimination of the cap would allow candidates and Party Officials to solicit and accept large donations to be shared , various major parties candidates, and committees. The Supreme Court has held the toits on large donations create a bulwark against certain corruption. Finance,ea of campaign some members of the court disagreed openly with that precedent and the court has shown itself quite willing to overturn precedent in this area. Us prior cases make tell what the outcome should be. They dont tell us what the outcome will be. Part of the dispute in the case is the distinction over Campaign Expenditures and campaign contributions. The 1976 case of buckley held the limits on expenditures were unconstitutional because that was a direct infringement on the First Amendment right of the candidate to speak and therefore subject to the highest level of First Amendment scrutiny and that the expenditure limits could not survive that level of scrutiny. The country editions were more like an association as opposed to a speech activity. It was subject to a lower level of scrutiny and the contributions and the aggregate limits survived the First Amendment challenge because they prevented corruption. In mccutchen, the petitioners are asking the court to narrow if not overturn this aspect of the buckley distinction between expenditures and contributions. Distinctionre is a so that their cases just about aggregate limits and not the individual contribution limits that applies to any specific candidate. The distinction they draw is pretty fuzzy. If they succeed in that aspect of the case, that would likely to thesignificant threat limits on contributions of individual candidates and i expect we would probably we would promptly see some litigation in that area. The petitioners also argue that they can win even under buckley just because the aggregate limits today, and given other research in campaignfinance law, are such that these particular limits are not needed to prevent corruption. The possibilities are that and at will be limited least some contribution limits will be subject to scrutiny meaning there will be no limits and buckley will not be limited but the court will hold that these particular limits do not protect against a government interest in protecting against willption or that buckley not be reaffirmed in the court will holdhe court that the limits protect against corruption. In this area, i dont think Justice Kennedy is a swing vote. Defined withll longstanding views about campaignfinance. Survive, wes to would probably looking to Justice Roberts. Whichever side wins, he will be a fifth vote and it will turn on whether he thinks the limits are needed to protect against corruption. Fantastic. Can we turn to the other part of the First Amendment . Is the word. This is a case coming from the upstate new york and it deals with one of the fuzzy parts of the constitution and and is the role of religion its relationship to government. The constitution makes no reference to god at all. It has a reference to religion and the First Amendment in which the congress and by extension other branches of government may make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor can they make a law preventing the exercise of religious faith as well. Even though the constitution itself does not talk about god and there are apparent clauses some kind of arms length length relationship between religion and government, we know the continental and the u. S. Congress and many bodies of government began their sessions with invocation of prayers and prayers and references to god were made by political officials from the beginning of the country through the present day. It is not clear exactly where the line is and the Supreme Court has struggled for many years to clarify that boundary. This case is one of those efforts by the court to clarify the boundary between church and state. Begin the reese meetings of the town board with a moment of silence. Perhaps some people wish it was longer [laughter] ago, theyver a decade change their practice and decided to have a verbal invocation and invite a clergymen to, and say a prayer before the town board began its deliberations. The town change the practice of how exactly it would choose who would be selected and who would be invited but eventually, they came up with a system in which someone in the Town Clerks Office would go through the phone book and call up the different churches in town and invite them to send someone to give an invocation for the Board Meeting. Religiouscalled institutions that were located inside their town and inside the town limits, all the religious institutions were christian. It were a couple of synagogues that they were just outside the town limits. There might have been a buddhist temple outside the town as well. Virtually a result, all the faith leaders who gave the invocation were christian. Many of the prayers that they gave made very explicit references to jesus christ and and were more than generic types of prayers that are perhaps less secretary in. To residents of greece, who attended a Board Meeting regularly found this practice of prayer is objectionable and they filed suit under the establishment clause of the First Amendment saying that the town of reese had gone too far in establishing a religion. The second court of appeals agreed with them by using by examining how the town went around selecting people to give the invocation and what exactly was being said in these prayers. It said that while there was not one clear bright line that was crossed by the town, if you look at the totality of the seeumstances, and you that almost all the prayers are given by christian clergy persons and many of the prayers had very explicit references to jesus and our savior and so on and you look at that, no effort was made to bring in other religions that may be located quite close physically but are just outside the town limits that totality of circumstances went too far under a 1983 Supreme Court decision which looked at legislative prayer and said that legislative prayer is ok if it does not involve proselytizing and disparage other religions and does not serve to advance one religion over another. The Supreme Court has agreed to whether what reese is doing is within those limits. Is an interesting anomaly in the general way the Supreme Court has looked at these establishments of religion cases. Serious the religious expression is, the more permissible it is under the constitution because it looks less like serious religion but it is more decorative. [laughter] i mean it. If Government Agencies that defend religious involvement in what theyre doing tend to say it is not really serious, just just search of a cultural, traditional thing. If we mean it, we are taking a stand on which religion is right and that would be less likely to pass constitutional muster. Noting ispoint worth where the Obama Administration is and they are siding on the side of the town of grease, they take the view that the court should not get into examining the content of every prayer. They say its too intrusive and there should be more breathing space for the town to decide what is an appropriate form of invocation. There is some commentary that has said the Obama Administration is hostile to religion. They have taken positions that the prouch on religion side, even more dramatically a couple of years ago. The administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse russet dance make it easier for religious schools to get tax related subsidies in arizona. At least for those of us covering the Supreme Court, they have notthey consistently always sided against religious institutions. Have threeous, we more cases to turn to before we get to your questions. About the to talk trivial passing subject of abortion. [laughter] that an area of the law fits the bill of the theme of areas where Justice Kennedy was in dissent and Justice Oconnor was in the majority on the court. His views have the potential to emerge as controlling. The first one is about abortion protest which is a freespeech case of the First Amendment. It is about protesters at the facilities and medical Health Clinics that offer surgical abortions. You have to step back to the previous president which was coloradoill versus with Justice Kennedy in dissent and the court upheld an eight foot floating offer his own. That means literally, you cannot approach a person within a certain number of feet. Tothat case, with respect any health facility, a person who is approaching and you wanted to Say Something to them, you had to stay eight feet away and the Supreme Court said that was a neutral way of preventing interference with access to health services. This case comes from massachusetts. It is a statute that is limited to abortion clinics, facilities that offer abortion, and it is a 35 foot nonfloating buffer zone. Within 35 feet of the entrance a personcility, approaching the facility, you cannot approach them to have a conversation or show them something, you have to let them proceed from that substantial instancee ditches into the facility. The Supreme Court upheld a 35 foot zone and has agreed to review the case. It will present a test of the expressive rights of people who want to do abortion counseling or protesting to approach a woman who was going into one of these facilities and offer literature or show gruesome images. Whether those freespeech rights are unduly infringed by making someone stand so far away that according to the protesters, they have to shout and use massive posters. The court of appeal suggested it was possible they could dress up as the grim reaper to get noticed. There are other things you could do in the context of the buffer zone. Here you have a situation where Justice Kennedy previously felt very strongly that these restrictions unduly impact on and inht of free speech the previous case, chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Oconnor have left the court. Possible that Justice Kennedy will have a majority to narrow the decision. Case related to abortion issues is called klein and it is a medically induced abortion case. To Supreme Court was asked review and oklahoma statute that ay prohibit the use of drugs to have a medically induced abortion in the first month or so of a pregnancy. That would be a significant issue whether the roe right extends to validate a restriction. Youstatute may say that have to follow fda guidelines on the use of the drugs or it may invoke the guidelines in a certain way that the drugs never actually could be used for medically induced abortions. There is an uncertainty about what the oklahoma law does so the Supreme Court invoked a relatively rare procedure where it sent to the case to the oklahoma Supreme Court to ask what it is this law does. If the oklahoma Supreme Court concludes it is a matter of oklahoma law that the law prohibits the use of the drug for medically induced abortions, then the Supreme Court could pick it up and it could present the first real look at roe v wade since the partial abortion cases. That cases on hold until we we hear from the state court of appeals. A follow on to the Affordable Care act case that don one on behalf of the Administration May be coming to the Supreme Court. This is not an issue on the courts docket yet but it likely that it will be soon and will be decided this term. This is another Affordable Care act issue. Most people get their Health Insurance through their employers. One of the things the Affordable Care act does is regulate the terms of those plans to ensure that the plans provide coverage for certain types of medical needs. Under regulations of the department of health and Human Services that implement that part of the Affordable Care act, one of the things that employer based health can health plans will provide as contraceptive coverage. Regulations also give religious employers and exemption for that. If you are a church employer or a Church School employer, you have an exemption from it. They dont give anybody the ability to opt out. A number of employers around the country who are not religious , they areoyers regular corporations organize under state law, have argued that they ought to be themselves able to be exempt from this theirement because religious scruples of the owners of the company are such that they believe that their religious beliefs would be violated if they were required to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their Health Insurance. The principal argument they make is under a statute called the religious freedom restoration act which Congress Passed some years ago based on its view that the Supreme Court was not interpreting the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and a robust enough way to you People Protection when they had religious objections to being subjected to the requirements of a general law like the Affordable Care act law, here. You have to listen carefully to the words on the statute. It says that the government shall not substantially burden a persons exercise of religion unless the government has a compelling interest and the burden imposed is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. The court of appeals has been wrestling with this and some have said that yes, actually, under those provisions of the program religious freedom restoration act, any corporation should be entitled to an exemption on the contraceptive coverage requirements. Others have come to the opposite conclusion. The case presents a number of potentially interesting issues. , isissue is a corporation it a person who can exercise religion . [laughter] another one is the contraceptive coverage requirement is it a substantial burden . Is it a burden on the employer or is it really taking something away from the employees who might not share the religious belief of the employer . Does the government then have a compelling interest in opposing that obligation and is the least restrictive means of doing so . That is something to look out for and a case may pop up on the Court Dockets in the next session. When we have finished precisely when we promised. [applause] we are getting ready for your questions. You did not applaud any of the cases. Only our timeliness. [laughter] your side of the bargain is that we get to hear youre fantastic questions. I was going to suggest that in the interest of everyone hearing every thing, we have two microphones on either side. If you would not lot it with you would not mind lining up the microphones, it will make it easier for everyone to hear. Yes, sir. [inaudible] does the fact of working and playing well together with other justices resulted in decisions for the particular case is falling short of logic and consistency to reach the magic number of five . One justice historically was famous for talking about the rule of five and that was the justice brennan. Perhaps don could answer that. Not a chance. [laughter] thanks for suggesting it. When the chief Justice Roberts fan famously asked about the need for the court to provide clarity and come together, you can look at that in one of two ways. There is the need to have broad majorities so we talked about decisions that were surprisingly the barethe other is fact of getting five people to agree to something so people know what the law is. If the Supreme Court is divided, we used to have a committee that would say the chief justice delivered the opinion for the plurality of the court. Justice oconnor might join one it would belaw and very difficult for people trying to apply the courts decision to know what the rules are. Bodynk in any collective including the Supreme Court there are compromises that are made in order to have some kind of rule that people can follow. You dont have to think about that as being politicizing. They have different judicial philosophies that there is a real imperative to come together with one rule if they can do it. Me a perfectly legitimate impulse to accomplish that is much better for the country if there is a clear rule that comes out of a case. If i could add what could have been on big cases Justice Ginsburg more recently indicated she was not going to be drawn into that again. She was the one dissent in the affirmative action case in june. Sometimes there is a compromise to get more people to sign on but there are sentence ends in there that up the analysis for a future case in ways that make some people unhappy. , thee Voting Rights case one a few years ago, it was 81 but it set up the overturning of an incredibly important part of the Voting Rights act and she indicated she was not going to concur or join the opinion of the affirmative action case this year because she did not to go in that direction. The panel has identified some interesting days coming in this term. Can you tell us about some if any ofing days us would care to watch the Supreme Court in action but would not care to encounter a line over the horizon. When are we most likely to be successful with that shorter line . [laughter] don has the responsibility to argue the most important cases in america. You are talking about my cases. [laughter] you and i argue against each other sometimes. Are not going to get in line for the fate of a obamacare or abortion, on the first day of the term, i will whether the Securities Litigation uniform standards act prevents people from filing suit under state law in texas and louisiana to try and bring claims arising from the Stanford Ponzi scheme, he sold about seven Million Dollars of certificates but was buying other things. It is whether you can bring a lawsuit about that. Technical question of law but that is an illustration of the fact that nine cases of the Supreme Court out of 10 present relatively ordinary questions of federal law. We have these disagreements over the contraception mandate and that is the Supreme Court to job principally. Inre will be these conflicts the court of appeals and the Supreme Court says we have to have one rule for the whole country and they will take the case. That can be a fantastically boring question. It may not be a hugely important question but i would say that nine times out of 10, you can go and see a relatively technical case that will not have lines going out the door. In favor of the argument for cameras in the courtroom, there are not many seats. There can be as few as 100 public seats on a given day. If people are coming from out of town, they should write to the court to get a reserved seat. It is tough and the view of most people that if you ceased your Supreme Court in action, you will be proud of them. They are working hard on these cupcake to questions. You can look on toms website with a list of cases they are deciding and what the questions are. You will be bored by in good number of those questions and you might have a chance of getting into them. [laughter] thank you. An there seems to be increasing politicization of the court and part of that may be media driven not because of a because ofg but reading whatever you put out instantaneously and get it on the airwaves. Beppreciate that you may not able to answer this but i am looking for more of an Historical Perspective of the court today versus its apparent politicization versus what we have seen historically. What i would say about that sometimes portrayed as politics are being politicized, what you are really ofing is the operation different judicial philosophies at work. There are different members of the court that have different judicial philosophies. They are legitimate philosophies and hold them quite deeply. In atend to drive them principled way to different answers to the same question. It is easy enough to perceive that as politics but, a lot of times, its not the right way to think about it. Thats not politics. This is a wellthoughtout philosophy about the law and the constitution and how to apply it. They just dont have the same philosophies of that generates differing results. You could say the same thing about the great battle in the Supreme Court during the 1930s over the new deal. Court hadr of the different philosophies how to interpret the constitution and how much deference you give to legislative toddies bodies. That does not mean its politics. In earlier periods, the court was not just political in this art of sense of how do their opinions line with political ideologies but they were actual politicians. In the 19th century, just as hughes ran for president. Another former president , chief justice taft who was appointed to the court. The firstjustices, chief justice resigned to run for governor of new york, john j. Ay. Era, g the new deal area one justice became a consultant. There were periods when the court was even more involved in the actual nuts and bolts of politics. They published articles under pseudonyms to influence policy. It may be one of those things where we always pine for the good old days no matter where we were. Howevercertain that political it is now, it is more political than it has been in other periods. I would not use the word thinking thati am hesitant toeems not disregard prior Supreme Court decisions. I would not call that political what they think they are wrong and they will not be deterred by what the prior court held whether that writer court was 10 ago when it was the Rehnquist Court or 30 years ago. Thats why so many cases we look at we talk today about maybe they will overturn any number of cases or limit them or change them in some way. I think that seems to me different than during my adult life. Of the court think as becoming politicized from the outside. As the country has gotten more divided and more harshly divided and the Supreme Court is tackling these big momentous issues like the constitutionality of the four book air act, the court itself becomes a political football and people who dont like the outcome of a given case tend to portray the majority of cases as political actors. The people who study the court very carefully and follow it agreed that people are applying different philosophies and acting in complete good faith. Thedoma decision, a lot happened after the decision and the administration has already spoken out on tax law and spoken out on immigration. They have not made a decision on social security. Was there any time frames involved . What is considered a reasonable time frame a government to implement . There are a lot of people in the executive branch working very hard to figure out how to do it tummy tuck. How to do it. There is no onesizefitsall answer to it. Each statute has different words and different requirements and can be interpreted one way or another. The government is working as rapidly as possible consistent with being thorough and careful and diligent and thinking through the legalities of it. They are making some fairly considerable progress. I think we have time for one more. Is it legally possible for the court to say they want to review a case that they have rigorously decided . United, could they get together and say we made assumptions and the assumptions were not right can we review this now or do we have to wait for another case to come up . Do you ever see them doing that . They have to wait for another case to come up. Don described, there has to be an actual controversy, a person hurt by Something Else and a lawsuit in front of the judges. What you see the justices doing is signaled their interest in reviewing a particular question or precedent. Individually, a justice might write a concurring opinion and say we might review a case. The majority might do that. We are aware of a whole series of precedents that that members of the court have signaled their interest in reviewing. Three members of the court have said there is a constitutional difference between expenditures and contributions in elections. Look thatve to do is when the court membership changes, you can look at the old think thatons and the court tries to keep but theyations stable might move on constitutional issues. I want to thank our panelists [laughter] [applause] [applause] [no audio] [applause] experts with extremely and are passionate about the law and i am lucky to have them here with us today. Iq offer coming and for those of you here all day, i hope you enjoyed it and for those who got the afternoon ticket, i hope you enjoyed that as well, thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] let me focus on something called advanced persistent somethingich is discussed post symmetrically and it internationally discussed both domestically and internationally. One of the reasons that changes need to be made in cybersecurity , is that we need to move to Continuous Monitoring and after that we need to move to continually be able to look at the precursor or the context that is being set for an attack. A lot of it has to do with analyzing social media. You are never going to defeat the cyber enemy, whether it is a nationstate, organized crime, theorganization by having private sector check the compliance clocks. We do all the congress wanted us to do. It is grossly ineffective. It has to be timely and continual information sharing horizontally within the federal government and then vertically down to the state and locals and particularly the private sector. After all, the government relies in the private sector to function. Homelandthe next security threats may come from. Booktv, a hidden life hidden from family and friends. The first female rocket scientist. Threesnday on cspan American History tv, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 15th Street Church bombing. Starting at 11 a. M. And throughout the day from birmingham alabama. Washington journal begins in a moment. At noon eastern, a look back at the 2008 financial crisis. During that discussion is form congressman. Rmer live coverage here on cspan. Us in 45 minutes is William Kristol of the weekly. Our guest is Steve Kornacki of salon. Com and msnbc. Washington journal is next. Well, 17 days remain before the government runs out of money and the politics and policy of howington remains unclear the potential shutdown will play out. Journalhe washington for september 13. We are going to go through some articles first, though. Here is politico. If it seems like we have been here before, it is