Believe it is not there will also the sheriff are not deputized to be enforcing federal Immigration Law that is a job for the federal immigration port authorities in there has been a Circuit Court decision that said this type of cooperation is not constitutional so that a is why you saw these cities led by democrats or the countys back off if. Is there a parallel efforts in the house . There has been in the. Past but nothing for a theey next few weeks so they could take a cue from the senate do we shortly after the bills come to the floor depending on how successful they are. With anything with fruit and legislation reform what were focusing on right now is appropriation bills to get those through the door working on the counterterrorism package and there are things they need to get done including the conference that just came out that they started to work, that that is another thing. It seems there has been several holds up to hold up with legislation with zika. The build economicit failed conference in dade directed money to. [inaudible] efforts in the democrats were upset from what was in the bill and a limited funding for planned parenthood to strip out of a provision so the democrats said we cannot vote for the bill you put into many partisan overrides and the Senate Majority leader said i cannot change the bill that cannot of conference cftc on it over the resource. It depe and so what happens afterent that . All think they will change their minds. G for those then i will not support this bill if it comes to my desk. Anh but hoping that the home town pressure saying that were not renegotiating this that theres no way we are supporting this bill. Inde. Birmingham alabama youre on the independent line. To cl the loophole of the gun comin 20ws is a big bang. So come and help with those machine guns and they take them to the middle of chicago and i would like to accent both of these. Look and how can it be stopped . That and lead to further in from pennsylvania to the key exemptions that would close the loopholes. It did not advance to the senate and it got the support but however, that they rejected the bill to but two months after the tragic shooting from connecticut it that was a close as they had come to guncontrol legislation but with the democratic controlled senate was a difficult advance. This seems to be that was supported that is why it has no attraction, the house side with democrats. Show loophl. Yes. S among democrats closing that loophole as well as online is something that they support wholeheartedly. Rallyingd th but because the nra is not supportive of that provision it would be typical to see the republicans. Good morning. Caller good morning. My first question is can we resolve all of the whip is distributed by u. S. Government with fast furious and with thenen running in libya . Would it be just as simple to go to o one dash store by door to confiscate all weapons that are out there . I think that was taken comes under that would not bode very fierce debate. Or the administration coming back from there to situate constituents the debate isat very fierce and is only grown in the past year given the different attacks that have happened on u. S. Soil. So the party is very divided on this it is not in issue that we have seen much bipartisan work on what they seem to support is the bill they see republicans and democrats working on an senator collins efforts when they came to the floor a feweffy weeks ago but to any efforts by the administration to make this an issue going into the election only hurt clintons chances were those that are trying to unseat republicans. There is a lease the push that any type of gun restriction that he is trying to take your guns away so this is why it is a tricky issue at the same time that congress has struggled to find a balance. There is a story that says donald trump with the House Republican conference what is that . That is about his rhetoric and his messaging and we heard earlier in the months leading up to a the endorsement id like to hear him tell and down the rhetoric using on the campaign trail and he is starting to get in hot water again when he used imaging with a star of david and we will see if that comes up in a discussion can you tone down your tweet a little bit as we get closer and closer to the election to see the entire agenda that speaker ryan tries to push forward econy the they are serious about these issues to Counter Terrorism to pare that as best he can. Th what has life been like for the speaker since the endorsement . Shortly after donald trump double down to say he would ban muslims to enter the u. S. And those that have mexican parents but so that was rf week right after the endorsement hear you are you say you want him to tone coun will he listen to your advice . But he would counter back i will not talk about the campaign every single day i am trying to do business here. T i think we need to rally behind our nominee and he is starting to go more on message. The senate side reports the senator from iowa is in discussions with donald trump with the general response with the reaction on the senate side. Later this week but the senator is verythirdplace wellrespected when she grows out of third place to win her pride very during the campaign she was regarded as a rising star. She took away as seats that had been held for decades by d tom harkin and Mitch Mcconnell tapped her to give the state of the unionth response of her first year really as her first month of senator that was a big role for her. She is from iowa which is first in the nation caucus that takes the role in the president ial nominating process. She did not mention the words Vice President of understatement she said she had a chance to talk with donald trump with the issues across the country and another thing were watching is campaigning with donald trump and another person mentioned on the of vicepresident ial last the list the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman who is outspoken and we will see that affects the chatter even more. He bla when did democrats started this crap on the hill to know whos sat down first . A black senator. Why dont they take the guns, m. Away . Cant they see what is goings, non . These games are taking over. Host what about the house side . Bluetooth sat down firstt it was a black person. They are the ones killing our people. Host now we go to pennsylvania on the democratic line. Caller i am a retiredol Law Enforcement officers listening to this entire discussion and i have spent stun following this for a long time now. I am a little stunned that my own party is refusing even to talk about the fact that orlando horsey inl, and burgundy no it is fine to talk about guncontrol it is paa important but we are being attacked by the Islamic State. Is a pattern of attack from france, a dubai, kenya, all those places where nobody is all armed with an entire population is disarmed the have no problem that is shooting hundreds of people. What i hear from my own party is to disarm all of us so we can be sitting ducks among these terrorist. You really need to get serious if you want to save the lives. If it is gun control thats why did you and to save lives from islamic terrorists then you have to get serious about fighting this issue and doing something about it. Host focusing on isis where is the house and senate to increase activity when it comes to isis . The biggest is that a u. S. Math at the Obama Administration sent to congress i want to say over one year ago they said you are restricting your powers to much whoever comes into the white house next can have the powers they need to combat and then the argument is the aumf proposed will expand powers for the president too far to allow too much unilateral authority so with the isis element it will work on the counterterrorism package and what he mentioned in the phone call is talking about the san bernie dino and orlando shooter how they were radicalize but not directly connected to isis. Had two of them were americanborn over the course of the years had become more radicalizedgi deciding to carry out these name attacks the argument is lets give this a name and that is the big element of this legislation. The foreignest up by congress is the use of military force with the then to push this to say then we need a full debate you can just complain about a president not given the powers with their own alreadters against the Islamic State that as a the house but to act with theed Islamic State it is not shown that they want to haveks so congress would take a more narrow approach after these terrorist attacks with the legislation after the paris attacks in november that puts more restrictions on though waiver list in they hailed from countriesare, in very easily could have come to the United States and we would not know who they are. So in terms of Something Big they could do like the aumf will not happen with this congress. To questions for thee inung ladies. For them to explain to the cspan audience their own personal experience attempting to purchase a firearm at again show or on line or at a store in if they had any problems. Number two can they tell the cspan audience the name of any nra member that was a mass shooter or terrorist . In other words, i dont think the nra is responsible for any of the mass shootings. As a matter of fact as a member of the Democrat Party ill take your answer offuy air. Was int my own personal experience to buy a gallonne wae after third journalist was in the huffington posted took 30 minutes i believe for them to purchase the ak47. Came out in italy took them seven minutes so that are those that were critical that came not in the wake of orlando. 30 minutes start to finish with checks . What was the reaction . There was a bit of surprise that it didnt take that long the people who had never owned guns previously to purchase that quickly and didnt have to go too much red tape. Host republican line good morning. Caller alibi to rescue questions. Democrats are all for allowing immigration into constituti the United States into restrict the right to bear arms which is the right under the constitution. The individuals that was killed was not integrity was thh illegal but illegals need to be controlled. The one before as to an earlier caller fromtry pennsylvania and then to confiscate the fire armsri they could not surrender. And as for the rest come i dont know where to start things for taking my call. And wish you both a wonderful day. Definitely he should not have been here he was deported seven times it actually with multiple felonies on his record and should have been deported right awaiting the administration and democrats acknowledged that it is a tricky issue particularly for democrats this happenedtor e didnt San Francisco so those california senators were under pressure and senator feinstein with that legislation in talkingy sanctuary cities to say you really can back down the yes he was in the United States illegally and should not have been here as they tried to figure out what that was San Francisco to not want to deal with federal immigration officials. With the gentleman mentioning to give a little and insight about charge to the debate is that there are bare minimum strain now. Host democratic line florida. Caller and have so many things to say. So the immigration issue and the gun issue. I will tell you i am a foreigner. I am caucasian. And i get to hear so many things to repeat the antiimmigrant we latins are mixed people. I am understand we have to have documentation i see from salvador and nicaragua every single day and theyh love the family they are good people. And the the people in the street we will not be here to fight that on the issuepa of guns they said they needed that ak47 so they walk in groups and it makes sense but in almost makes meweap laugh if all they want is to have some control of vast but of that mass amount of people. Th speaking to the gun issue again it just goes back toto the fact the democrats want i to see the bills come to thehe floor there even him understanding even though some were very emotional saying it reminded him of john lewis the civilrights t icon to talk about this issue theyre just asking for a vote their realistic did pretty positive they dont have the votes even though with the no fly no buy this is something the American People should vote whether they go down or succeed. Obviously so many in thecipae community to take care of their family and the daytoday life of their communities and by many republicans as well president obama did takeus executive action a year and a half ago to shield these people who have no criminal records or background checks to allow them to stay here. And they can work legally g but the decision was blocked repeatedly by a federal court in on the deadlock said this is a big part of his legacy that was blocked by the Supreme Court see you can see at the congress and the president ial level to be it might turn and very tricky. How concerned is the senate right now to turn over in november . I would say there is somee concern especially with some races we thought were safe coming into play including Chuck Grassley of iowa who took some heat from theman of o democrats of course, the very vulnerable senators from ohio and mark kirk from illinois as they tried to push issues then number havee supported and also try tooo see the zero pla legislation that would be a big deal if they could say i was in the senate and a hell passed the legislation to push the solution towards treatment and medication as opposed toif e abstinence to restrict those tactics spirit that would be a big win if they could get that through especially with the. [inaudible] virus that is why they feel the pressure and they try to say but the spill across the floor and look at what i was able to do. On even if they will say publicly with donald trump at the top of the ticket most are running for reelection as the nominee but they realize those that came not in very big numbers we need them to come out to support them with their own reelection races but it alsork realize that comments that they made that is why you saw those republicans see that illinois is a very Democratic State to say i was the nominee about hissome ae endorsement about a month ago you also seek the endorsement you also have kelly ayotte san i will support him that not endorse him. Cc the difficulties that they are trying to balance boasting how accomplishedr. They are but they are running in the swing states. As they run for reelection and senator sanders . It is still involved in thefr campaign but last . It is hard. [laughter] until he formally ends the campaign to of the secret Service Detail to vision actually meet with the House Democratic caucus to discuss his vision obviously he will not be the nominee but he is to get past that democratic platform in philadelphia. They l. Lets hear it from bob from indiana. Thank you for taking our g call. I wanted to ask the ladies and result of the gun control issue over the last few years more and more federal agencies have been issued for small arms and the perception appears to be that when semiautomatic weapons are held by private citizens that the appearance seems to be that they hold an offensive weapon, but when theyre held in Government Employee hands they are classified as defensive weapons for purple personal protection. I would like to know why that is. Think you. I think thats an issue that has definitely come up before. Al agencie even weapons in the hands ofry federal agencies can go awry. About four years ago it became a major congressional issue. I think that something that they are deftly paying attention to. Host heres kent. Enship, caller the felony are for subject to deportation but not eligible for citizenship but it goes the same thing with the various advocacy groups, so i do not know why they are not embracing this injustice. Guest i think again, not that specific issue but the broader issue of treating immigrants who are here legally or hugh came the right way versus the immigrants who came here illegally, and in a fire variety of issues that has been a major tension point for some time and use the elements of that argument coming up in Immigration Reform debates over and overp at again. I seem he is talking about the shooting and this is a guy who really fell through the cracksov and should been deported, time,t perhaps the first time, with his first felony conviction, but congress hasnt been able to pass legislation targeting this issue because the republicans and democrats had not been able to agree. En what is interesting is that part of the executive action that the president announced a year and half ago that doesnt really get talked about our these new enforcement programs obviously the forced cooperation of local officials in federal government in a Broader Program called secure communities was very criticize and jay johnson has kind of try to go back to the cityss ae that said we cannot work with federal enforcement officials anymore and try to find ways w that Homeland Community security can cooperate with the local cities and counties who are very reticent about this cooperation. He gave an update during the Senate Judiciary Committee Last week which he testified about Homeland Security matters he said of the 25 biggest cities, i want to sayrk 16 are open to working with the federal government again because he considers it a major victory, so your seen efforts that dont get as much coverage but you are seen efforts by the federal government to try and work with the citys more to make sure that Something Like kates death will not happen again. Host from texas, independent line, jim. Host from texas, independent line, jim. Good morning. I want to correct something that sold in a gun store. B that is a select a lot of people would support more restrictive gun regulations, whatever, 2 are committed by rifles and almost none are committed by legal gun owners. Heroine has always been illegal. We have more hair when on the street now than ever. Simply making laws does not work. 67 of homicides are committed by handguns. 50 of homicides committed by african africanamericans. It would be very unfair to take guns away from the hands of africanamericans, but if you want something that wouldd bes effective in reducing in our homicide rate i would it support it but if thats what youre looking for, a policy, consider that. At guest speak into the heroine issue, that something that congress would like to get done preferably before the long summer recess, before the november election. T they and really the efforts that they are trying to push through, especially on the senate side would be a lot more focused on recovery, not as much on Law Enforcement. That is. That is the biggest difference that weve seen in the shift in the socalled war on drugs and that is something that states like New Hampshire are definitely desperate for. More funding to try to open Treatment Centers to try to figure out which medication would be best to help heroine or opioid addicts wean off the drug. So these bills, he is correct that heroine overdoses had skyrocketed especially in areas that were unseen previously, New Hampshire, some 400 people overdosed in 2015, in ohio, some 200 people overdosed in 2015 is a biggh issue out there for the country right now. Host last call from virginia, republican line. Caller thank you forommentso taking my call. I to comments to make. The first is about isis. They are not muslims because islam does not allow anyone to be killed, and they had been killing more muslims than non muslims especially in how you decide People Killed in iraq. So they are against humanity. Nothing second is about gun control. If someone pulls on the guns and you see 100 guns pointing at him, he would not commite any crimes, he wont killd anyone but he does not realize that in countries like pakistan, iraq in syria where everybody carries a gun the terrorist never pulls out a gun because he knows that once he pulls out the gun there would be 100 ak47s pointed at him. So what he does is he comesn out in a broad area and you give guns to everyone in america, believe me, the terrorist will change their tactics because they will know that they cannot kill anyone with guns anymore, they will start exploding themselves in public areas. Then we have a bigger would have a bigger problem on our hands. Think you. Stay think you. Next if we get there august and if we get through the election season what is left work wise for bills and what faces later down the road so to speak after the election and after the summer break. Guest given the fact that they only had nine days left before july 15 and then they are gone for over a month there is a possibility thatno they do not get to opioid legislation done and they do not get the secret virus funding done. If that happens that is something they will have to finish before they leave for the end of the year as well as appropriation bills. If they stumble on appropriation bills, which is a possibility because i have done that for the past few years then another omnibus may be in order. Guest i think a spending fight will be the biggest thing that you see. Of before they go to campaign for the november election and its critical because we kind of chugged away at some appropriation bills but they will not be able to finish byprr september so it is a matter of do you try to assemble and on the bus in september which seems unlikely or just do a quick continuing resolution and try to kick the can down the road until the lame duck session . In the lame duck session, we will have to deal with a major spending bill, and perhaps the b transpacific partnership, the trade deal thats been so controversial on the campaign trail and the other year end activities it should be a very busy time. Min kim host our guest covering those activities. The road to the white house coverage continues later today. He will be joined by the tennessee senator bob corker who also serves as Foreign Relation Committee chair. See those remarks live from raleigh today at 7 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan two. Are wrote to the white house coverage continues with the Democratic National Committee Form committee taking place life in orlando friday, july 8 starting at 3 00 p. M. Eastern and continuing saturday july 9, at 9 00 a. M. Eastern. Committee members will debate and vote on the Democratic Party form for this years election. Live coverage. In less than two weeks we will have a live coverage of every minute of the 2016 Republican National convention followed by the Democratic National convention. And every saturday night at eight eastern. Take a look at past conventions in the president ial candidates who went on to win their partys nomination speared the saturday we will focus on incumbent. The 1954 Democratic Convention in Atlantic City and with lyndon johnson. Richard nixon at the 1972 Republican Convention in miami beach. 1980 Democratic Convention with jimmy carter in new york city. The 1984 Republican Convention in dallas with ronald reagan. George hw bush at the 1992 Republican Convention in houston. Will clinton in chicago for the 1996 Democratic Convention and the 2004 can pension convention. Saturday night at eight eastern on cspan. Earlier today fbi director james, he announced that he will not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information on private email servers. Speaking to her supporters in washington he announced the completion of the investigation but said that secretary clinton in her colleagues were extremely careless in their handling of classified information. Here is more now. Although we did not find clear evidence that secretary clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the classified information there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling a very sensitive highly classified information. For example, seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the Top Secret Special Access Program at the time they were sent in received. Those chains involved secretary clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in secretary clintons position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about this matters should have known that an auto classified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to the highly Sensitive Information we also found information that was properly classified but Intelligent Committee at the time it was discussed on email. It was. None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system. But their presence is concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by fulltime security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with the commercial email service like gmail. I think its important to say about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information. Even the information was not marked classified in an email participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified our still obligated to protect it. And while not the focus of our investigation we developed evidence that in general and with respect to the use of unclassified systems in particular was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the u. S. Government. With respect to potential computer we did not find direct evidence that secretary clintons personal email domain in its various configurations since 2009 was hacked successfully. Given the nation of the system and the actors protect intensely involved we would be unlikely to see direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with him secretary clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that secretary clintons use of a personal email domain was known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States including sending and receiving workrelated emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given the, nation of factors we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to the personal email account. He gave that briefing and House Speaker paul ryan tweeted this out. While i respect the professionals of the fbi this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. And republican president ial candidate donald trump said this the system is rate general patraeus got in trouble for far less. Very, very unfair. As usual bad judgment. And speaking of mister trump just a quick reminder that later this afternoon a Campaign Event with him in Raleigh North Carolina he will be joined by the tennessee senator bob corker whose name has been quoted by news organizations as a potential Vice President pick. See life. Right now several Supreme Court reporters discussed the High Court Last term and some of the major decisions handed down. This isnt our and a half. Dash this is an hour and a half. Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the 28th annual view from the press Gallery Program sponsored by the dc bar. With the former member of the committee and for my day job. I have a couple of preliminaries before we begin. I want to thank all of the reporters for hosting again this year. And to Marcia Tucker is a pro bono core correlator and a technical staff. Thank you to cspan for covering us again this year. I understand we will be broadcast live this year on cspan two. If you dont know how to do the show on the tv you can sling to the side of the room. And many thanks to my colleague who is a the producer of the show. He corning so many requirements of cspan. As i mentioned our main sponsor and the administration of justice which focuses on matters involving administration and rules of the relationship between the bench and the bar in the lawyers relationship to the profession. Including ethics and discipline. They improve access to justice. If youre not a member, you are cordially invited to join. It is only one of 20 sections of the dc bar, which covers most areas of Legal Practice from antitrust to entertainment to family law, criminal law, real estate tax. If you are a member we encourage you to join one. If youre not get a member that the dc bar than we then we encourage you to think about it. If you are not yet a member of the American Civil Liberties union you can join that on our website. We will be privileged to hear the panel of judges who had covered the Supreme Court for many years. I want to introduce them in the order of seniority. Tony morrow mfr right of the National Order of lawyer media since 1979 first for the service of usa today. He joined the washington after it emerged International Journalism at 2009. David savage, who is next to tony he has been with the Los Angeles Times since 1981 and covering the court since 1986. He started at the same time and in recent years he has covered reports in the chicago tribune. He recently wrote a latest edition of the guide to the u. S. Supreme court which is that congressional quarterly. Adam liptak on my immediate right took over the New York Times about eight years ago and has a long history with the times. He first joined as a copy boy in 1984 after graduating from college and then returned with a law degree in 1992 and joined their Legal Department after advising the paper with litigation involving defamation and privacy, the right to music data and similar issues. A decade later became a reporter of legal issues. On my last area and develop is a producer for cnn politics covering the court of legal issues in guiding cnns reporting on other Legal Departments. Before joining cnn she covered the court as well as a the nomination of several justices for abc news and its Investigative Reporter she also covered terrorism, the aftermath of september 11, bill clintons impeachment. Her bio on the cnn website tells me she grew up and indiana and google maps tells me that has a population of 5853. She is a graduate of George Washington university. This is not a panel of litigators analyzing case law although we talk about some cases. Mostly we talk about the institution and a collection of individuals in journalist. We plan to save some time at the end for questions from the audience. I dont actually see a mike. Theres microphones that can be passed around. You can think about possible questions as we go along and hopefully there will be a time at the end. So lets get started, the Biggest Development this year and the most unexpected was the death of justice kalina midway through the 30th term on the court. There were obvious ways in which that affected the departure of several cases and how it affects the operation of the core in the atmosphere at the courthouse. Let me pose that question first to tony who actually started covering the court before she arrived. Its good to be here. I do remember the days before justice kalina and when the oral argument at the Supreme Court was a much tamer affair than it is now. When you have justices like brennan and marshall and black mint and palo. A lot of them ask very few questions. You to go whole hour with maybe a handful of questions were as now its not uncommon to have 60 questions, 80 questions in an hour or a half hour. It is incredible how different it is. And certainly he stirred the pot. As soon as he got on their i dont think he waited for the rookie year of deferring to the other justices he waited right in and i think made arguments much more proactive or aggressive it was to the point where i would often come out of an oral argument and think boy the Supreme Court is going to rule this way on the case and then i would look at it this way and it was just Justice Scalia who is going away but he have such an overwhelming influence over the entire court or the entire event. It was just amazing. He would throw lifelines to life to lawyers he was in favor of. He would demolish lawyers. He was antagonistic. I remember once he ask a question in the lawyers sauropods a little bit too long and scalia said, counselor, your four choices. Yes, no, i dont know or im not telling, which is it . I was surprised that the lawyer didnt think at that point. I think i would have. He was that kind of an active participant and he got everybody else active, to. I sure agree with all of that. I remember when scalia started. The first couple weeks before he started. Tony said he seem to be in court of nine old men and then scalia came on and he was full of energy. There were so many times over the years where he could go up and they would be arguing in a case or whatever and there was an audience of tourists and i would think ten minutes into it, but he is every but he is about a sleep then scalia would say Something Like you think you want us, counselor, you want us to rewrite the rules for handling energy nationwide. The attorney would say no, and he would say it sure sounds like it. He would start in on an attorney and you can see everybodys eyes would light up because he have a different view of the case, really clear. Eventually the other justices would wake up and try to respond but he was a real force of nature. You can immediately see the spring have Different Things were when he was gone because the Abortion Case followed a few weeks after that and the three women justices really went after the Texas Attorney and it was like ive never seen the site of the court before. In the old days scalia what a wouldve been there to fight back. If you just watch the court it was a very different place without them as well. I was gonna say in the abortion argument, have scalia been on the bench, he may have been able to cut it back a little bit. That was a sustained attack from the liberal justices and have he been on the bench i think he wouldve stepped in and he would have maybe change things a little bit. But i also have an interesting conversation with somebody who have argued before the court for years and they said going and suddenly they have to prepare a whole different way and i was very interesting for me because as a journalist im not preparing for arguments, but without scalia on the bench we have to look at oral arguments in an entirely different way and present the case differently. He have that ability if you are ever into watch oral arguments, he would be way back in his chair and then you knew it was coming and he would come forward and he could derail even the most experienced lawyers they could feel that. Every time a new justice joints a court its a new court and that is surely true but it turns out even losing a justice completely transforms the court. I will just say that it is less fun to cover dicks court than the court with scalia. You could agree with him or disagree with him, he said a lot of quotable things from the bench and deftly in his prime was one of the very finest writers who ever served on the court. He may have lost half a step in later years you probably remember in the affirmative action argument against the university of texas, he said i think i know what he was try to say it but he managed to say it so badly that it smelled of racism, so heres a man whose career was tremendously in blue and some really fun to cover but may have been on the decline even before his sudden death. Let me follow up on something you just said, i also think i know what theyre trying to say in that time. And he said in a way to suggest that i have a general problem sova if you are in our position you have to say heres what he said and heres what he sort of meant they did not say it that way. So i wrote the unsatisfactory article that try to say all of those things. And that kennedy wanted no part of this even after scalia abandoned his. Actually saw that when you wrote that i had not thought of that before i thought it was so interesting to make that connection of kennedy. I thought fit when he wrote that and i hadnt made that connection and i thought it was fascinating to make thinking about the impact of high of oral arguments and i remember that day really well i remember schoolteacher whereby students to court to hear the arguments i looked over i did not actually hear a gasping because i was busy trying to keep up but i saw the faces looking very stunned because what he said did not match up because because it was clumsy. Id which you try to explain all of this . We did explain it. I think i wrote a separate peace on bill whole theory then two days later we got the audio. And when that came out he wrote again because it was very powerful because then with the audio comes from the Supreme Court we cut dash and we really sad and people were interested in hearing that. This is an example why dont with the idea to be released the same day if it wouldve been in that evening knowing that scalia is gone. It is an argument that you know, when the idea was released on friday. I have never gotten any answer. In fact, were going backward because there were cases when we would get audio the same day but that doesnt seem to be happening and it reminds me of the solicitor general when he was starting Health Care Case then he choked on water glenn went down the wrong way it was not a good start that case now in an ad. You have to think the justices are thinking to make this into a political attack ad as a hushed serious argument. That did not help the cause of trying to get audio released. You have an article how he made you into an adjective . Justice scalia did not have much use for reporters. I guess i got under his skin in 2000 how Justice Scalia in conversation with members of congress at receptions to have the ban for the justices that federal judges that they are not allowed to get 5,000 for a speech for an article but they can get 20,000 for a teaching law school in florence in the summer which a law of them do, but they cannot get honorarium for speeches so Justice Scalia was jawboning members of congress to get that day and lifted. So he wrote a letter to the editor that was extraordinary. So my first question first of all, is this for real . And second to does the justice want this printed . Yes. So he said among the many other things the story was gossipy and moronic nt spelled it with my name. [laughter] so i became an adjective did washington and that was a badge of honor for a while. Said the Washington Post picked up on that and i am sure he regretted that moniker. Said he was known for his oral defense this term he only had to oral defense from Justice Alito was that less funds to cover but not use those words . Justice alito is half full firstrate lawyer not particularly quotable. It but what you will ask about which still goes on the big days . To see that dissent that made the net of us and that is fairly be set. That is a very good way to cover the court. To have the person in that wrote the decision that youre not trying to flip through the paperwork but to say what is wrong with with that person has just told you dead 25 minutes later to scroll down and then to be informed by that valuable knowledge but that is no longer available to west. But my colleagues to get this piece of paper the moment it stars so that is just two terms ago of this valuable historical thing to see these decisions to be in the pressroom to start writing read away. We do have colleagues but i will tell you frankly it is a costbenefit where think the benefit outweighs the cost. What is interesting on that when the defense is read and Justice Alito read si affirmativeaction case it is just off i can hear hear everything that in the thoughts of the affirmativeaction case and i thought that i heard him say this is affirmative action gone berserk. But he did not say that in the opinion so there is an example because obviously there are read the entire dissent i that that was like him to go out affirmative action gone berserk so that was a little difference that you missed but i interviewed one who was upstairs listening and this was in the first case and she didnt have the paper said she is listening in she thinks i am going one way that of a sudden shifted gears i remember her saying something my head swizzled. That is something you dont get with your rifling through the papers and i totally understand but i am often envious of my colleagues. Just to follow up, the opinion announcement is a close as the Supreme Court gets because the justices dont redoubled opinion they used to but now it is just a summary and they can highlight the parts they think are important so they can dodge or avoid the tough parts and so it is valuable to see what the justices themselves think is the most important and sometimes there are words that are not in the actual opinion. That is a big loss and also why this deepens their reach but i was just saying goes oral arguments at the end of the week when they appear that the opinion announcements are not made public in sometimes many months after the argument or after the announcement is made they dont like the opinion announcements sometimes there is a spin on that and then they all sign off with their in the majority and then said i did not sign up for that. So those are very controversial that is why they dont want us to quote from that. Remember Justice Sotomayor she said she doesnt usually read the descent but then she changed her mind and then read the shooting opinion from the bench did it was interesting something happened that she went into that to say that she felt strongly enough about that to do that. It has only happened a few times. Do you think if they could distribute that information they might be willing to do that . No. [laughter] i do recall we tried to make headway from many increments and that is a huge help and that is if they could release orders as they decide not to take cases that is the same time the argument started of these opinions and we said about 930 but later they said aside from the fact i dont know if there is any reason not to do that. [laughter] so now they are tiny baby steps so now we just try to accommodate our needs. Electronic television reporters your job is different. Heavily dash nazi and the year and a half in before that abc 21 years. And i never worked for prince but i do think the digital age has put us in the same area. I the guy all look for the bottom line first of all, the best we can and then follow that up with a team as the head and if they want to hear what the justice says he tried to find the best couple of sentences and for me that took a little water. So really quickly we have the television site go wing and then remove just as quickly on the digital site because that is the big push at cnn that interest me to do that. Because now if we put a story about Justice Scalia up then maybe we can make to oral arguments in the interview he gave with Justice Ginsberg in that maybe a little bit about his sons Memorial Service so it is a totally different world with that push on the digital side. To actually need to get on air with the tv camera . Our main correspondent is the Justice Department correspondent so she is ready to go with the camera is out there i am inside sometimes i do go on camera because we do have a huge news hold but one of the things i like to try to do is to write internally as well as externally like the White House Reporter who cares about this to see things from my angle it is a new world for you to wear a law of different hats. Tried to get the news out so quickly with how much you had written in advance since. Is suspected of not alone in this. But since they arrived the readers want to know what happened and it is much easier to do this if there are three or four possible outcomes to write each story in advance and then supplement almost immediately and then fairly soon with actual analysis but it comes as a surprise as standard journalistic devices at halftime to say that that background work in every story and that that is something you were not doing. I remember when reading the opinion and then have lunch to say here is the lead and now there is 45 seconds . It just seems that i have to use to decide read the opinion. But i think i a more restrained but it is true people go racing out of their room but look in who dissented and make sure because it is very thin. Youll want to race and put up the wrong headline but if we have to retrieve different versions i looked at it quickly and go back to my desk and then 45 seconds has expired so i say i thought the affirmativeaction case would be a four three decision striking down texas in a narrow way. Kennedy did it seem that way but we thought it was the other version we and accusing the diffusing the restrict affirmative action that they were split i had another version but that it was the third one which was totally different so i had to quickly say affirmative action and about one minute there was two sentences that i have the background context so a way that could be sitting there the headline or the lead that is interesting challenge because we spent a law of weeks up their dead on the last thursday they did affirmativeaction that by the way just getting back affirmativeaction story straight for its war on immigration but that is hugely thinking california that is where everybody was interested so do it again 45 seconds to get that up but then we had the abortion and public Corruption Case it usually isnt a job be spent a law of jobs time to prepare be listened to arguments to be a College Student like final exams but it is different but now we do that in 45 seconds not only do you have to be prepared and go fast but there is very little time. But the big cases were easy to wear understand that there will be a time cover there is three votes but then the desk goes crazy. That is why everybody was thrown with health care not falling as close as we should have because of the Commerce Clause roberts says strikes that down to repay races out but that there was the second to question the least the bottom line of the decision is clear so it took a bit to figure that out. I was really tired and trying to think of every way of the Abortion Case there were two provisions of that law and i was very worried that the accord would act differently so now talk about writing several different ways it was almost like a game won in is one way i have to live it i stumbled on that because i had to make sure. We should be paid for the outtakes. Oh my goodness,. Since scalias death there was an effort to make things a little more clear. I dont know but it did seem a law of the opinions were simpler to interpret but sometimes that is really hard. I thought about it but what is the difference on the other hand . For the liberal to make a real point from the judgment which is have you possibly get a headline out . That years ago and then i could not find one this year. So i had an opinion for the court as they are joining in that where they also joined of the environment. In another case you are talking about here is the reason you want to go upstairs because soviet wrote the majority it was confusing as hell and at the end of the announcement it was 97 this if you take that you will not be wrong. So back to how i started there was nothing like that this year and i couldnt find one. The contraception case was a little like that it was completely opaque falsely declares that very clear both sides of very close and we will send back to the lower courts to let them finish up because we are not really judges or breviaries so both sides took their victory. I forget my headline and a probably wasnt wrong and it wasnt ideal either. This is a term that i read those decisions it is not hard to be a Supreme Court justice we could be in eight member court in here is how you do it you read the brief on one side than they make really good arguments that he read them on the other side and they make good arguments said the new draft the opinion they make good arguments if they go too far that is a mistake would not want to go that way but on the other hand, the maker really good argument that not every violation is of though law so then we will really cant so they handed a law of those cases down with said we dont entirely agree with this or that so we can decide this case it is a close call we will send it back to let the lower courts try again so if they actually decide the issue they just send it back and that is how they agreed to resolve a case. Contraception case i dont think i have ever seen anything like it here. You figured out. It is usually the courts job and they said this is a mess straightened out you are not that far from each other i have never seen anything like that. Is true disturb their previous terms they do tend to be united that means if the liberals want to block a cayman but if they can take the leverage from kennedy or the chief then can issue a liberal decision. But in the Abortion Case ginsberg had the oral arguments. Without the access to travel, and then then she drew, and im half french, she drew in a sign which meant, a very short open you and it was basically saying that for lack of a better alternative, if they didnt have better access, they may resort to clinics that were unsafe for abortion. I thought it was interesting that she made that point she had made before and break a little bit from the discipline. I suspect she might have liked that assignment. The senior justice in the majority, kennedy, gets to make the assignment and he gave it to briar and nons
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.