A panel who covered the Supreme Court for many years. Tony has covered the court since 1979 first for gwinnett news service and u. S. A. Today. He joined the washington legal times in 2000 and continued as a host correspondent after it merged into the national law journal. David next to tony has been with the Los Angeles Times since 1981 and covering the court since 1986. He started at the same time Justice Scalia started. And also in recent years he covered the courts for the chicago tribune. He wrote the latest decision of he guide to the Supreme Court. Adam on my immediate write covered the Supreme Court eight years ago but has a long history with the times which he first joined as a copy boy after graduating from college and then returned with a law degree in 1992 joining their Legal Department advising the paper and representing it in litigation. A decade later he became a reporter covering legal issues. And on my left aryan is a reporter and producer for cnn politics covering the
At first, my publisher, editor, and i were thinking should we just call it scalia but we wanted something larger because he is larger. It talks about his italian ba background. And the originalism is him looking back at what they founders wanted in the document and how it should be interpreted today. It was the committee, the title of the original, reflecting him as an original, and a first generation and a proponent of the originalism theory. There is no one like him ever on the Supreme Court. Is that what you thought about . So many people are intrigued by my choice. The first biography i did was Justice Oconnor but for people that dont know the court he is one of the nine, a conservative, and outspoken but why focus on him . He is an original. You know firsthand and have been following him and close to him for decades. He is so distinctive in style but he is distinctive among his career as well. You mention the opera. I think of Justice Scalia as someone who might have been an opera
Before the world was changing. Marty ginsberg for some reason was ahead of the game. They were so equal in their partnership, not just when it came to care of the children, he was the primary cook for the family, Ruth Bader Ginsburg hadnt cooked anything since 1980 was our understanding. Yes. And also when it came to their careers. Marty ginsberg was a dominant tax attorney. He also graduated from Harvard Law School although he was quick to point out that his wife made wall review and he didnt but he became a prominent tax attorney, was very well known in his field but they both had to give and take when it came to their careers. Ruth actually left Harvard Law School her third year, thats why she transferred to columbia because marty had a job in downtown new york host again, keeping with the theme of diversity, while he is in law school he gets cancer. Guest thats right there and she actually typed up his notes. She would type up his favors for him always to while doing her work and t
And know that they were working with who they identified as their afghan brothers so just im regret that so much hey, bad i can remember the first time i went to afghanistan with sheila jacksonlee. She pointed out that bad news has no feet and excuse me. What is it . Good news has no feet and bad news has wings. And wow. But the bad the good thing is that extraordinary progress has been made and i agree with the chairman, too, that success in afghanistan is to deny terrorists safe havens which protects American Families and that we cannot forget it was september 11th, 2001, the attacks on our country, that were originated, planned and culminated from caves in afghanistan so im just very appreciative of your efforts and the largely bipartisan support we have here w. That in mind, with this special operations reliance of support from conventional forces, if conventional forces are reduced, as has been called for, how can special operations fill in this gap . Sir, today, we continue to ta
This subject, week after next, train and equip, not just iraq. Iraq, syria and afghanistan. Historically in a broader context, what are the lessons . Is it always hard . Are there particular circumstances in every country beyond our control . Are there lessons we can apply more broadly to Different Countries and our efforts to improve their Security Forces . We cant do everything ourselves. So nebraskas gsomebodys got t there helping us do it. Were trying to work with others. You just heard somebody today mention poland. We have allies of different capabilities. How well are we organized, equipped, prepared to work with those different capabilities . I think this is a big, very important question. So is the hearing going to be oversight or education . Both. So were going to have close the roundtable, were going to have outside experts, were going to have administration witnesses at different events. So its try to understand, but its also hone in on what were doing now and is it working