Justice . This was interesting. Obama has gotten attention for his comments on court cases particularly before theyre decided, as well as after where i think its perhaps a bit more typical for president to speak after decisions are made. But it did seem interesting that i mean he actually went as far to criticize the cert stage when he said the court shouldnt have even taken the case. So it was interesting. And just by coincidence i happen to have sitting in my inbox a study of president ial comments on pending Supreme Court cases since 1954. Looking at this study and seeing how really rare it was, although not completely unheard of for president to comment when they had cases of which they took some interest before the Supreme Court, i dont think it is going to be a very typical thing. I think this as one factor that the study itself observed, president s most likely to comment on pending cases tend to be lawyering who think they know a lot about the law and are in a position to discuss it. And so you know, president clinton actually commented on a pending case where he predicted that the court would side with him in the census statistical citing case. I dont think its going to be very common. I think this president believes he knows a lot about the law and is in a good position to explain it not so much to the justices. I dont think he has illusions about that. I think hes more trying to explain or lay out his legal position to the public. And to either assure them that his legal position is wise or sustainable or sort of lay the groundwork for a response should he lose. So i dont think its going to be that common. I dont think that obama has actually planned most of these remarks when he has made them. As they did in that case, it came up at a press conference where he was directly asked a question and he immediately responded because i think it was on his mind. My guess is that it wont be something we see very typically, although hes had more, i think, significant pieces of legislation or, you know, before the court than the typical president does. Any comment . This is for any of the panelists. As we enter the president ial election cycle how prominent do you think the Supreme Court will be b . Senator ted cruz is proposing an administration to retire retention limits for the judges. Every four years we have this conversation and it always ends up being the answer ends up being no. Expect the only time or in recent times when the court was at all an issue was when Richard Nixon ran in 1968 because it fit into the law and Order Campaign that he ran more generally. But i think to think that the court i cant remember what the statistics are, but, you know, more people can identify the three stooges than members of the Supreme Court. The idea that its going to become a salient issue in the president ial campaign is unlikely. The Supreme Court, it is the unusual Public Office in which the holder becomes less well known the longer he or she serves than any other office. And you know, theyre known when theyre on tv for their confirmation and then they disappear. We found that chief Justice Roberts is known by fewer americans today than he was ten years ago. In a recent poll that we had. I think that the courts importance is going to be right now its important for donors. And in this sort of invisible part of the election there are hard core people on both the left and right who are super concerned about the direction of the court, probably theres a disproportionate number of those watching today. They will be making their preferences known not so much at the ballot box but which candidates they support and how they support them. I think its important to some constituency and individuals, small number. Had the court ruled differently in some f these cases such as the marriage case or the Health Care Case it might have been a bigger political issue. But in terms of becoming a major popular issue, that would only happen if we end up for some reason with a vacancy close to election day where it kris crystallizes the stakes immediately. I completely agree. But as a normative matter, it ought to. The next president will probably get to appoint more than one, maybe three Supreme Court justices. I dont know why people dont pay more attention to that. Maybe its our fault. If we just covered it better. So look agent the flip side of that question, do you think any of the justices who fear looking political will shy away from taking up any particularly controversial issues in the next term because of the upcoming election . Weve seen no evidence of that. Okay. So this question is for all three of you. But its based on something mark wrote. He wrote thats virtually impossible to get anything done without roberts or kennedy on your side. Though kennedy was in the majority of more 54 decisions do you think that roberts is going to increasingly become the pivotal vote . I think i wrote that to point out the oddity. There was one decision this term where both kennedys roberts was in dissent. I think its only happened one other time on the court. There was a forgettable case a faux years ago where the five junior justices were the majority. That said, you know, the chief justices is, you know, he seems like hes going to play that role where you know questions are present about the courts you know the institutional integrity of the court or the courts reputation. I think hes more likely a vote to perhaps you know when those cases are otherwise id logically split, hen hewhen a decision would damage the courts reputation, perhaps in those cases he finds a way to the other side. Unless im mistaken, there are exactly two decisions in which the chief joins the four liberals. Congratulations, guys. One final question then well open it up for questions from the audience. Is there a particular concurrence or dissent that you found particularly striking this term that you commend . Well start with you unless someone has one at the tip of their tongue. There were many long dissents about the Administrative State which ill read this summer. But i like, maybe against my better judgment, that after Justice Kennedy called for a look at solitary confinement, Justice Thomas wrote back in a separate concurrence right, that he thought that the death row inmate in particular had much more spacious quarters than the ones occupied by his victims. I would agree that those two concurrences are a great state. Mark, any . Just the, just the one phrase after another in the scalia end of term dissents. Its sort of like a greatest hits of dissents. Yeah. You really have to put yourself with that well open it up to the audience. I have a few rules. Wait for the microphone please identify yourself and ask a brief question. With that hi, paul cammon. On the criminal docket you talked about the patel case in yates. Could you care to comment on the alonis case and how that might impact lower courts and prosecutors requiring a high mens rea and specific intent in. Anyone want to take that in. We had a good discussion of that from john. And as he pointed out, you know the court said very little other than not negligence. Not clear whether recklessness work ors not. I imagine people will try to make sense of that across a whole spectrum of criminal laws and where mens rea fits in. My name is arnold zitlan. Its a possibility that the 2016 will continue the divided government that exists today with the executive being from a Different Party of the legislature. What impact would this have on the president s ability to fill vacancies under that kind of a situation . Hard to know up front except that it obviously suggests that the nominees would be more to the center rath than the right or left depending on who wins the white house. Part of that will depend on the you know, the mandate the new president has, if theres a sort of a first nature to this next appointment, all sorts of questions like that. Any additional questions . Right here. Thanks very much. Ian williams. Can i take you up on your offer when you said you might look ahead at some of the case to come and the thoughts from the panel about what some of the blockbusters might be for the next term. There are three of them. This last term will be hard to beat. I remember a couple of years ago we had the first Health Care Case. And then we had a first go at marriage. The court ended up not answering. We thought that was the term of the century. And then when you had health care and marriage together we certainly did have a term of the century. We have a second look at fisher the affirmative action case and that sure makes you think that there are at least four votes and an attempt to put kennedy on the spot. Kennedy never voted to uphold an affirmative Action Program about whether the university of texas is hybrid affirmative Action Program satisfies strict scrutiny again. Here again well have a look at what the court means by strict scrutiny. A second case just granted brought by mike represents a very serious challenge to the way public unions are run, whether nonmembers of public union can be forced nonetheless to pay for fees that the unions use for collective bargaining activities that may be said to violate the First Amendment rights of the union members. Thats both very interesting and substantial question and a quite consequential case. And then theres an interesting case that you might have thought we would know the answer to already but we dont. What does one person one vote mean. Whom do you count to draw districts. Do you count every Single Person or do you count the people who are eligible to vote. And this too matters a lot. At the moment most centers count every person. But that means you get a lot of children, people who are here illegally from abroad but not entitled to vote. You have undocumented people. You have people whose right to vote has been stripped from them because theyre felons. You have vastly different voting power in different districts if by voting power you mean eligible voters. Here again you have great political consequences because at the moment urban centers which tend to be blue, get more voting power than rural places which tend to be red. And the court at least conceivably will recast that map. Thats three pretty good cases. And that doesnt include the case of abortion based on the texas clinic restrictions. Would be quite surprising having stayed the texas case that they not take it. So there were going to have a real look at what casey means. Jess, any others . Those are the big ones that are here right now. I think the lesson that we saw from this term is just because a court is willing to look at these very carefully doesnt mean that outcome is afaye that come plea. Thats the listen we get from the texas versus Inclusive Communities case. The housing case. I mean there we saw the court going out of its way to really lack at that issue twice granting cert on the issue twice having the chance to have it swiped from their grasp by the litigants who dismissed or settled their cases. And then finally getting the chance to look at it and saying looks like all of the appeals courts that have considered this issue for the past four years were right. Never mind. So yeah, were going to see those cases. Keep in mind that were going to see the results of those cases no later than june of president ial election year. So the kinds of institutional concerns about rocking the boat and being a Disruptive Force in society and in the political system may be even more hely on the justices minds than they are right now. For instance a one man one vote ruling depending on what they say coming right before a big election, you know might be the kind of thing that you know, slightly increases from 0. 1 to 0. 11 of a police call issue. With that weve come to the owned of ur time. Please join any in thanking our panelists. [ applause ] today on cspan3, a discussion about terrorism in the middle east and south asia. Military and Foreign Policy analysts will discuss efforts to fight isis in iraq and syria and the threat al qaeda poses in afghanistan and pakistan. Live coverage begins noon eastern time on cspan3. Heres some of the featured programs for this weekend on the cspan networks. With the upcoming release of harper lees novel, starting saturday night, we talk about the impact of lees book to kill a mockingbird and the event that led to the publication of her new level. Well reair the programs sunday evening at 6 30. Sunday night at 10 00, radio talk show host hugh hewitt on Hillary Clintons run for president. Saturday night at 8 00 eastern 50th anniversary of the vietnam war. And on sunday visiting with the New Hampshire voter rs. American history tv on cspan3, saturday 8 00 p. M. Eastern, factors that led to the Great Depression and president roosevelts actions to help the American People and the economy. And sunday evening at 6 30, best selling historical novelist on the burn of Atlanta Georgia and Columbia South carolina and why sherman is not the villain of popular ledge. Get the complete weekend schedule at cspan. Org. On wednesday the head of the International MonetaryFund Christine Lagarde talked about the greek debt crisis and how the imf is trying to provide assistance. He discussed initiatives on Global Development, promoting Financial Stability and Climate Change. Her remarks at the Brookings Institute in washington, d. C. Are just over an hour. Good afternoon, everyone. We have the great pleasure to have Christine Lagarde managing director of the imf with us and a panel that ill introduce in a few moments. Thank you to all of you to come. And also you just made i before the major storm. I think excellent timing. The topic today will be financing for development, financing for the post2015 development agenda. And well stick to that because, you know otherwise the world is so full of problems. Of course, christine can talk about what he wants. But i think we should stick to that. Its a big enough, important enough topic. Everybody knows of course Christine Lagarde. But let me remind you she also was, before her her tenure as minister of trade and finance in france, leading a major low Practice International law practice with baker and mckenzie. And at the fund i think what weve seen is the fund despite all of the criticisms and debates is crucial to the World Economy and to the world. And at the same time the fund has opened itself up much more. I know Christine Lagarde is very tough but she also engages with everybody and discusses things and you know, never is close to reasonable debate. And i think thats so important in this field. Because as we know in economics there are many view many perspectives and not one is necessarily correct. I would like to thank her to be with us, financing of the post2015 Development Goals is a key issue. It goes together with the big summit that will take place in new york in september and of course the Climate Summit in paris. But there has been huge progress in the world, theres in question about that. But not for everyone. And even for those where there has been progress, i think expectations have exploded also. Modern communications modern closeness in some sense, in the virtual space at least and thats good for the economy. Strong expectations mean strong demands. But at the same time one has to deliver and delivery is the big issue, of course. So christine to you and then well have a panel and some discussion. [ applause ] well good afternoon to all of you. And thank you very much for hosting me and for those kind words of swrointroduction. Well what i thought i would do i know that some of you have other concerns on their mind than financing for development which is the key reason why most of us are here i thought i would get not out of the way, but i would say a few words about greece. I dont know whether the New York Stock Exchange trading as resumed yet. Im not going to comment on that but i thought on greece i would say a few words. Because clearly significant and rapid developments and the imf has been adopting a line of not silence. But we try to be mindful of developments and not be excessive in our positions. But i would like to say that if the imf is involved in this situation, it is because the imf was asked by greece to be involved in trying to resolve itself economic issues. Whenever the imf is involved it is certainly my view that the imf has to follow its rules should not bend the rules, and should always be even handed. There cannot be any special treatment. Third point i would like to make is that our loans to countries experiencing difficulties, our loans are conditional upon various requirements but all of them aim at restoring stability restoring growth and debt sustainability. In the context of greece we have always advised that that program walk on two legs, if you will. One leg is about significant reforms and Fiscal Consolidation as we have advised in the case of island, portugal cyprus and outside the euro zone, ice land. And it has worked. And the other leg is debt restructuring which we believe is needed in the particular case of greece for it to have debt sustainability. That analysis has not changed. It may well be that numbers wi