our second panelist is margaret brennan, and anchor and reporter for bloomberg television news in new york. she was a general assignment reporter for nbc and a contributor to nbc's today show and nightly news as well as an best nbc. she is also a graduate of mr. jefferson's university of virginia. alan murray is managing editor and executive editor on line for the wall street journal. he was previously managing editor of a wall street journal and author of the weekly business column. he has served as washington d.c. bureau chief for nbc and the wall street journal. we are very fortunate to have alan on our governing council at the madison of public affairs at the university. a member of distinction for many years. next we have robert sanders, contributing editor of newsweek and the washington post where he has written about business and economic issues since 19707. his articles also appear in the los angeles times, boston globe and other reading newspapers. his latest book is entitled the great inflation and its aftermath, past and future of american capitalists in case you are wonder

this is barclays bank, they bought the brennan seven lehman brothers services lehman brothers trading for 7,457th avenue mine back at the scene, not the scene of the crime but the same trading floor i used to work and i noticed in the corner office i said who it is that man in the corner office? and as he said to me, that is bought diamond, and i said it the ceo of barclays' capital? and he said, yes. how things have changed. things have changed in the sense that you have lessons learned hopefully, you now have the ceo of barclays' capital right there on the trading floor with the best and brightest paying close attention to what is going on. not in the 31st floor completely away from the battlefield. >> unit, and at the beginning that this was the end of capitalism in america but had you mean that? >> not the end of a capitalism has been changed forever because first and foremost you have the fed window, the federal government has now been assisting banks have to the primary credit facility. in other words, you have investment banks that are having access and getting help from the go

brennan," judge lynch admonished the successors of judge brennan that they must engage in constitutional interpretation -- quote -- "in light of their own wisdom and experience and in light of the conditions of the american society today." close quote. in that same article, judge lynch stated that he personally believed it was a simple necessity that the constitution -- quote -- "be given meaning for the present." skwrufrpblg lynch's -- judge lynch's quote included the opinion that justice brennan's -- quote -- "long and untiring labor in the principles of the constitution in the way that he believed made most sense today seems far more honest and honorable than the pretense that the meaning of those principles can be found in 18th or 19th century dictionaries." i had a problem with that speech in 1997 when he came up. such strong statement of adherence to the doctrine that justice brennan was the foremost advocate of of the living constitution that words don't have fixed meanings, that you can make them say what you want them to say to affect the result you think is appropriate today. b

. >> frederic schwartz, professor schwartz's chief counsel at the brennan center for justice at the new york law school. his legal career, he has a high level of private practice with a series of critically important public service assignments. mr. schwarz served as chief counsel of the church commission, has been a time when i came to the sate and when i think what first appeared hee has also served as chief counsel to the senate select committee on intelligence. he chairshe board of either institute of justice. recently received the gold medal award for distinguished service to the new york state bar association. he received an a.b. magna cum laude from harvard university law degree from harvard law school where he was editor of the law review. mr. schwarz, it is always good to see you here. pleaseo ahead, sir. >> that was quite a few years ago when we first met. >> yes, sir. was. >> i actually had hair back and. it was a little bit darker. >> and i had solid black hair back then also. so thankou for convening this hearing. thank you for your proposal for the commission which i suppor

>> the ennis sea and through john brennan. >> there are a couple of reports about a bank loan to the brazilian government for offshore drilling and i am wondering if you can give an administration take why the investment in brazil and exploration there is a good idea and helpful for the u.s. economy. >> i have all seen this story. i would have to look at this. >> and eastern told abc today talking about health care, quote, i feel we are talking losing control of congress if health care fails. it would totally in power republicans to kill all changed its hard to imagine the democrats convincing the public that republicans are to blame for health care reform going down the democrats of such large majorities. is their anything the white house disagrees with in that and is that any way under the allies as the white house what talk and may be such negative terms in the next couple of months? >> i have not seen the comments. i doubt it and don't know if the president has. we don't look at -- we don't look at -- we are not making decisions about health care, the economy, cash for clunkers,

but there is no marshal, goldberg or brennan or warren or black or douglas or... you don't have that kind of leadership on the court today. you have moderates and look at the -- on the court and three or four, depending whether they -- on judge thomas, conservatives, right wing corporatists. and you have holding the swing vote, justice kennedy, who is far more conservative than the previous swing vote, justice o'connor is very conservative but not quite in lock-step with the other four and these four are fairly young. they'll be with us for a long time. and they -- the conservatives made the effort and have done several things, number once had a change of promotions from the federalist society to the clerkships to the reagan administration to solicitor general's office to llc, to appellate courts and to the supreme court and have a chain of candidates. still in the wings, if we should have another republican president and the liberals on the other hand -- and they've done something else and developed a simple doctrine, two doctrines which they've repeated over and

but especially chief renquist it feels like is shunted off to the left-wing with his friend of bill brennan and people are listening to him and he's not having the opportunity to reshape the law. he's just dealing with what he views as a reactionary right-wing that's constantly undercut a is that only a limited action in other kevin fifth time and again fell and he thinks that all he can do with that point is right is said and hope to become the basis for future majority opinions when the court changes its composition. >> host: in describing him use the word exceptional, exceptional family growing up in an exceptional place in baltimore hazmat. >> guest: when addressed in the history. what happened was i had written "eyes on the prize" about the american civil rights movement with it in the course of doing the research for the book had come across the idea that there is one historic figure in this book still live still an active person in the american society thurgood marshall who sits on the supreme court in the late 1980's it is and i thought he lives in the same city as live-in and nobod

in an analysis of her record done by the brennan center for justice the numbers overwhelmingly indicated judge sotomayor is in the mainstream of the second circuit. judge sotomayor has been in agreement with your colleagues more than 94% of constitutional decisions have been unanimous. she's voted with a majority over 90% of constitutional cases. when judge sotomayor was voted to will the government will action on constitutional her decisions have been unanimous over 90% of the time. republican appointees agreed with her decision to hold government action on constitutional nearly 90% of the time. when she voted to overrule lower court agency her decisions lower court or agency, her decisions have been unanimous over 93% of the time. republican appointees agree with judge sotomayor's decisions to overthrow the decision in a 94% of the cases. judge sotomayor's record is a testament to her strict adherence to precedent. per unyielding belief in the wall and the constitution. i strongly support the nomination of judge sotomayor and firmly believe she will prove to be one of the finest tariff

police, the naacp, united states chamber of commerce, the national association of women legislators, the brennan center for justice, the lawyers committees for civil rights under law, and many, many more. the nine justices of the united states supreme court have the tremendous responsibility of safeguarding the framers' intent and the fundamental values of our constitution while ensuring the protections and rights they have in that very constitution are applied and are relevant to the issues of the day. it is my belief that the constitution and bill of rights were created to be timeless documents that stand together as the foundation for the rule of law in our nation. were it not possible for the supreme court to apply the basic tenets of the constitution in changing times, moving beyond popular sentiment, our nation would never have made the progress it has: improving society for the better. when the constitution was written, african-americans were considered property and counted only at three-fifths of a person. nonwhites and women were not allowed to vote. individuals restricted by race as to

all the way to the right, say like judge thomas, ten being all the way to the left, say like justice brennan, i think the bush nominees to the supreme court and court of appeals were almost exclusively ones and twos, way over. if you looked at president clington's nominees, they were somewhat left of center but not much, mainly sixes and sevens. prosecutors, partners in law firms, not lawyers had had spent their careers in activist causes. president obama has taken a different approach. he's -- he's trying to return the the court to the middle, to the pre-bush day, the days of having judges that may not be exactly what the right wants in a judge or even when the left, the far left wants in a judge. we are returning to the days where judges were fives and sixes and sevens, fours. they were squarely in the mainstream. we are returning to the days when judges put the rule of law first. and somehow my republican colleagues are aghast. the only judges they seem to want to vote for are ones and twos, judges who are on the hard right. and the president is not going to nominate judges who have that

in an analysis of her record done by the brennan center for justice, the numbers overwhelmingly indicate that judge sotomayor is solidly in the mainstream of the second circuit. judge sotomayor has been in agreement with her colleagues more than 94% of the constitutional decisions have been unanimous. she has voted with the majority over 98% of constitutional cases. when judge sotomayor was voted to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional, her decisions have been unanimous over 90% of the time. republican appointees have agreed with her decision to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional nearly 90% of the cases. when she has voted to overrule lower court agency, her decisions -- or lower court or agency, her decisions have been unanimous over 93% of the time. republican appointees have agreed with judge sotomayor's decisions to overrule a lower court decision in over 94% of the cases. judge sotomayor's record is a testament to her strict adherence to precedent, her unyielding belief in the rule of law, and our constitution. i strongly support the nomination

brennan engaging in a serious inquiry into the witness for the supreme court many of my republican colleagues have made this nomination into a referendum on whether the newly minted individual right to bear arms to be incorporated against the states for the first time in the nation's history very this is doubly unfair. first judge sotomayor could not answer questions at her hearing that would suggest how she would ruin in later cases. that is inappropriate. second it is inappropriate to try to force on a giant a particular political view us of the price of admission to her judicial office. criticisms of effuse reliance in the various speeches are equally perplexing. judge sotomayor's long and noncontroversial 17 year judicial record and should have to allay any concerns about those remarks. but social the context of those features themselves. the wise latina, and we have heard so much about came in a speech that are you how important is for judges to guard against bias in to be aware of their own prejudices. is it not better to admit that we all have prejudices' we must management and to pret

the nonpartisan brennan center for justice reviewed all of judge sotomayor's constitutional law decisions and said, "based on this exhaustive review, the conclusion is unmistakable in constitutional law cases that judge sotomayor is solidly in the mainstream of the second circuit." judge sotomayor's former law clerks wrote a letter endorsing her nomination in which they said, "as former law clerks to judge sotomayor, each of us can attest to her intellectual prowess, extraordinary work ethic and commitment to the rule of law. working for judge sotomayor is an awe-inspiring experience. we each have the privilege of working closely with her as she confronted and resolved incredibly complex and intellectually demanding legal challenges. judge sotomayor approaches each case with an open mind and arrives at her decision only after carefully considering all of the pertinent facts and applicable rules of law. the law clerk said that they agree with mr. of judge many ofe sotomayor's other colleagues who he say they respect her collegiality and balanced and fair jurisprudence. mr. president, i wou

especially rehnquist i think he feels he's shunted to the left wing of the court with his friend bill brennan and that people aren't listening to him and he's not having the opportunity to shape the law at that point, that he's just dealing with what he views as a reactionary white wing constantly undercutting not only affirmative action, undercut with balky and continue to undercut time and again and he thinks all he can do at that point is right this and hope that the dissidents become the basis for future majority opinions when the court changes its composition. >> host: in fact in describing him you use the word exceptional, exceptional family growing up in exceptional place in baltimore. >> guest: what a fascinating history. for me, juneau, steve, what happened i had written on is on the prize, a book about the american civil rights movement, and in the course of doing the research for that book had come across the idea that wait a minute, there is one historic figure in this book still alive, still an active person in american society, thurgood marshall who sits on the supreme court. th

for those who serve in our marshal brennan program, that was invented by jamie. he is a great professor at american university school of law. abbe smith is another one of the co-authors the book, and she visited us earlier in this academic term because she is the author of a wonderful book called "the case of a lifetime," another one of the coauthors -- it is a small word i-is eva pat pataki at -- patterson. she was the president of the student boding at northern. she was the first african-american president of the student body and was a law professor at the university of california at berkeley. so what a team you put together for this book. we're very interested to hear about the chapters you wrote and your colleagues wrote, and also hear about your views on appointments to be made. i guess the latest i saw is there may be as many as 20 court of appeals vacancies already out there on the plate. so we're poised for a very interesting series of appointments very early on in the new administration. so, go to it, and very pleased that you're here. [applause] >> than

regular meetings here at the white house hosted the by senior white house officials including john brennan and others to continue planning for what the president and his administration talked about earlier this year, that what we saw building up and then that i did communities throughout the country and honestly affected countries throughout the world, hit in many ways at the back end of our own police susan. which in many ways probably likely give us a preview of its depth and severity of what we will face come the fall. we are taking steps working with state and local officials, working with communities, working with school districts to ensure that have the best information about what steps can any to be taken to get ready for what we know is coming. obviously many countries around the world we have seen a preview of the the tax, the taxing major this is going to provide in, the ability with which two this is going to test how the infrastructure. and i know the team is working through decision making in the development of antiviral our production for antiviral in the development for a va

i put in that the nonpartisan brennan center found use solidly in the mainstream and then another analysis of more than 800 of your cases which found you followed a traditional consensus judge on criminal justice issues. i thought i would put those in. it's one thing to talk about the speeches you might give. i'm more interested on cases you might decide. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and good morning judge sotomayor. senator sessions has been a great deal of time on the new haven case so i would like to see if we can put it into some perspective. is it true that ricci was a very close case? is it true that 11 of the 22 judges that reviewed the case did agree with you and that it was only reversed by the supreme court by a one-vote, 5-4 margin? so, do you agree judge that it was a close case and that reasonable minds could at seen it in one way or another and not be seen as prejudiced or unable to make a clear decision? >> to the extent that reasonable minds can differ on any case, that is true as to what the legal conclusions should be in a case. but, the panel, at least as the case

and kathleen, janet, john brennan, arne duncan and our entire team have tried to engage in the most rigorous planning exercise to make sure that anything that may occur in the fall we're prepared for. and so i won't go through the details of this. i'm sure that kathleen and janet and others have laid out what the potential consequences are of a new outbreak of h1n1. we want to make sure that we are not promoting panic but we are promoting vigilance and preparation. and the most important thing for us to do in this process is to make sure that state and local officials prepare now to implement a vaccination program in the fall but also that they are working on an overall public communications campaign with the white house and the possibilities that we may need to be dealing with schools that are seeing significant outbreaks of h1n1. and we've looked at past cases of this being properly handled in situations like this being improperly handled. and one of the most important differences is where it's well-handled state and local officials have complete ownership over this issue. they are providi

one could think of in terms of a chief justice marshall or you could think about it in terms of bill brennan cobbling together majorities of people for positions that aren't always intuitively obvious as a legal matter, but then some sense have this real underbelly of pragmatism and politics in the best sense in terms of making people of all sides and persuasions come together and celebrate the decision. there is some cost to that, of course, in terms of fidelity to the statutory text and precedent as well but particularly multi member court, may be real strong case to be made for it and then, on the other hand, you could say there is the view of the true intellectual, the frankfurter, or the then judge rehnquist writing these loan defense in the 1970's which ultimately it comes in many cases the law of the land. .. in the voting rights act case or in the trip search case. it's unclear to me which is the right way to be. but i do think that that is a really powerful question that is set up by the voting lineups and the opinions written in these case. but i think the very interesting thing ab

i think the last cross party appointment was president eisenhower's william brennan, lewis powell was obligated because he was a southern democrat, still in the early 1970s. but presidents pick members of their own parties certainly for the supreme court. certainly by and large for what the constitution calls inferior federal judiciary. so how do you answer the letter, how do any of you answer the letter writer saying, look, what you believe this want to do is substitute an alternate form of politics for a transparent? >> that is so wrong because under a merit selection system, which i helped design for my home state of arizona, we set up a bipartisan commission of citizens to consider applications of people who want to be a judge. they let anybody apply. now those applications and those records are open to the public. everybody can find out who has applied and they can weigh in. the hearings when the interview these people are open to the public. and they ask that the person who wants to be considered filed forms and answered questions. that is also open to the public. and the commis