because there we re not looking for evidence of a legislative intent to create a right to judicial review. your position is that s already there under the apa. unless there is evidence of a judicial intent, of a congressional intention to preclude judicial review? that s exactly right. that s the presumption created by the apa. the way that your honor articulated it is the way the supreme court has articulated it time and again. that s the government s burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that congress intended to preclude our claims, not our burden to demonstrate that congress intended to create them. if i may, i ll move on to the merits of our statutory claim. as i said before, our first claim is that section 215 simply does not apply to call records. in the same statute that congress enacted section 215, in 2001, it added a provision to the stored communications act prohibiting the government from acquiring phone records. it created i exceptions to that proh
appreciate it more. she kicks off a very special series for us. here comes the bride. the first official wedding photo of george clooney and his wife, amal, released overnight. the story behind the dress, the cake, and the speeches. today, tuesday, september 3 9 30th, 2014. announcer: from nbc news, this is today with matt lauer and savannah guthrie live from studio 1a in rockefeller plaza. and good morning. welcome to today on a tuesday morning. i m matt lauer, along with tamron hall. tamron is here while savannah continues on maternity leave after her surprise visit yesterday. yes. natalie morales and dylan dreyer. al is on his way to a shine a light destination, a uso show for troops overseas. we ll be checking in with him in a little while. did you see the crowd outside? yes, i did. they re getting ready for lady antebellum and their new album. it s nice to see joan lunden here. our friend is in the studio. she was diagnosed recently with breast canc
for a reception and appear in front of 500 people in a room speech, itpublic should be recorded and there s no good reason why we should had to cede to his request that it not be recorded. why did you? he wouldn t have come otherwise. on these remarks, it s self-evident that they are thatrent in the sense other than justice kagan, they ve come from one cloistered life to another. to the priesthood is through the federal appellate these institutions are bundled up so when they get to the supreme court, they don t range of professions and exposures in public life that other government people would have by the time they got high rung. you re saying they re different because they have super thin skin? not because no, it s because they re transparency is not a technical issue or a legal cultural issue. when transparency is a technical issue, it fails, it almost always fails. if you look at the president s open government agenda, when the president on day one was like we
that s where you may see an agenda. my question really is, i know in the united eight we have places inre judges are elected. canada and israel, are there some judges and court systems where there is an election? are you kidding? i remember in judgment at nuremberg there is a scene where marlena dietrich is walking with spencer tracy. i love movies. oscar night for me is a religious night. she said, this is your country? i remember it was so odd the notion that you are directly responsive to the public for the decisions where you have to choose a side that may not be the one giving you the money. who do you go to for fund raising? i m not saying there are very good judges who are elected. theory ofg about the an election where you are directly responsible to the majority for decision-making. , ifou are doing sentencing you are doing constitutional rights, you are having to decide a minority versus a majority interest, and if you really like hearing a judge and you want to g
property belonging to the public. and not subject to the particular decision making of any particular justice when he or she leaves the court, and when you ask what access means to me, everyone that responded in terms of extreme particularity, i wrote some statistics down. my wife s grandfather was a friend of justice douglas and we discovered when he passed away that he had a number of letters from douglas and we were kind of trophy hunting going through the papers and seeing the stuff. so i looked it up online to see what i could find out about the papers of justice douglas and where they were. and, of course, you go to the supreme court website and immediately send you someplace else because it s not the kind of thing that they are collect and gathering, although they should. as you make your way through a number of other websites, i found with great particularity great information about the papers of justice douglas, which i will share with you. they re at the library of