supreme court, and what did they tell you? in temple terms of when y were supposed to have found that out? >> accding to the response justice alito wre, he said i should have complained after the first paycheck,hat i received that was discriminatory, even though i didn't know that, and no way to prove it. >> so i was wondering, and i know justice ginsburg, something i talked to solicitor general kagan about this, was i suppose, you would have had to be rifling through the drawers of looking at pay stubs or asking your fellow employees how much they were making? is that what you were supposed tt do? >> well, i was supposed to do that in order to find out. and had i ne that i would have been fired. >> right. so i think one of the reasons your case, in addition to the obvious wrongs that were righted by the law that we passed in congress, but i think one of the things that interested me about yr case was it was just an example of you, who never thought you'd end up here in the halls of congress, nor i think did any of the other w

the supreme court pastelist to do that. what it said is broadcasters are entitled to the same clear criteria so that they can structure their broadcast in a way that does not force them to end up running afoul of the indecency standards that the commission has adopted an expose them to potentially ruinous fines. >> carter phillips was the attorney in this case for fox television stations. also joining us on "the communicators," kim hart. >> in the decision, they bring up the media landscape that would have been almost unrecognizable in 1978. how do you see this evolving media landscape that is changing on an almost daily basis -- there are lots more opportunities for entertainment on the internet, cable, broadcast -- where do you see this discussion evolving? what is next for broadcasters? >> when the supreme case -- when the supreme court decided the case of george carlin with pacifica, it said that broadcast television was uniquely pervasive. it has become anything but, because virtually everybody has cable. i think young

supreme court. i outline my standards for continuing this nomination last week, and said i would vote for her. she is a highly experienced person. i wish that her nomination to the d.c. circuit court of appeals allowed her to go forward when she was nominated by president clinton, and she would have had that experience, too. but she was a -- she has been the dean of the most prestigious -- one of the most prestigious law schools, being a georgetown graduate, i'll say one of the most prestigious law schools in this country. and, of course, being solicitor general. and i note that she's received the highest possible rating from the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary. her credentials and legal abilities have been extolled by many from across the political spectrum, praised by justice sandra day o'connor. justice antonen scalia. michael mcconnell, kenneth starr, miguel estrada. like william rehnquist, hufelix black and hugo, the solicitor general cage didn't not serve i

something that i think will serve her well on the supreme court. democrats and republicans given good testimony on the preem court of the united states sochl the real test that i think all of us would like to know is whether she as associate justice will follow legal precedents giving due deference to congress, and protecting the rights of americans against abuses of power. i think that's how most of us define judicial restraint. she will be in the mainstream of american values. affects all of us. we are all impacted by the decisions made pi these nine justices. and recently we have seen a trend where the narrowest of margins the so-called conservative justices being in the majority have legislated from the bench. it was in those cases that i did my questioning when i had an opportunity to talk -- to ask questions during the confirmation hearings. . reversing prior holdings. i think it's going be healthy for the american people to have more women on the supreme court of the united states. and the conservative members are making it more difficult fo

the supreme court exists for all americans. only one person gets to nominate somebody for the court. only 100 americans get to vote on whether that person should be on the court or not. it is an awesome responsibility. i urge the nominee to engage with this committee and through these proceedings with the american people in a constitutional conversation about the role of the courts and our constitution. when we discuss the constitution's commerce clause, or spending power, we are talking about congressional authority to pass laws to ensure protection of our communities from natural and man-made disasters, to encourage clean air and water, to provide health care for all americans, to ensure safe food and drugs, to protect equal rights, to enforce safe workplaces and to provide a safety net for all seniors. now, i reject the ideological litmus tests from the right or the left. i expect judges to look to the legislative intent of our losaw, to consider the consequences of their decisions, to use common sense and to follow the law.

supreme court, and what did they tell you? in temple terms of when you we supposed to have found that out? >> according to the response justice alito wrote, he said i should have complained after the first paycheck, that i received that was discriminatory, even though i didn't know that, and no way to prove it. >> so i was wondering, and i know justice ginsburg, something i talked to solicitor general kagan about this, was i suppose, you would have had to be rifling through the drawers of looking at pay stubs or asking your fellow employees how much they were making? is that what you were supposed to do? >> well, i was supposed to do that in order to find out. and had i done that, i would have been fired. >> right. so i think one of the reasons your case, in addition to the obvious wrongs that were righted by the law that we passed in congress, but i think one of the things that interested me about your case was it was just an example of you, who never thought you'd end up here in the halls of congress, nor i think did any of

to the supreme court, a two-volume, 1272 -- 12,072-page report on the people of the supreme court. guest: and there's a new version of that coming out this summer. host: look for it in your local book stores. guest: i think they sell it to a lot of libraries. it's been around a long time. i can't claim the 1,200 pages. but -- >> and what would be the -- who would use this book? and who would be looking for this? >> my understanding is it's a lot of libraries, public, school and ccllege libraries. and this book was created as a sort of everything you wanted to know about the supreme court. you can look up actual information. i actually got interested in writing the forward, because i used it a lot. a case or situation would come up, like the person asking about the railroad of the 18t 0's, and i could look it up in this book. my understandiig is it's sold to a lot of libraries and used as a reference court. host: and for those doing research or want to know a little bit about the supreme court, we also -- c-span has its own supreme court website. and we'll show that to you as we tak

justices for dinner at the supreme court building. it is one of the only time to come into contact with the justices in a social setting. most of us look forward to it. we wonder which supreme court justice will draw our table. this last time we got together, i was sitting with justice kennedy, and we talked about a lot of things. i said to him at 1 point, it appears that i am going to be the chair of the crime subcommittee of the senate judiciary committee. what kind of issues do i think i should consider? he said, i will tell you what we think -- he mentioned the issue which has not yet been raised during the course of this hearing. . related to the system of incarcerations and corrections in the united states. he felt, and i agree that our system is broken, badly broken. today in the united states, more than 2.3 million people are in prison. we have the most prisoners of any country in the world, as well as the highest per capita rate of prisoners in the world. and african-americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of

supreme court. i outline my standards for continuing this nomination last week, and said i would vote for her. she is a highly experienced person. i wish that her nomination to the d.c. circuit court of appeals allowed her to go forward when she was nominated by president clinton, and she would have had that experience, too. but she was a -- sheas been the dean of the most prestigious -- one of the most prestigious law schools, being a georgetown graduate, i'll say one of the most prestigious law schools in this country. and, of course, being solicitor general. and i note that she's received the highest possible rating from the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary. her credentls and legal abilities have been extolled by many from across the political spectrum, praised by justice sandra day o'connor. justice antonen scalia. michael mcconnell, kenneth starr, miguel estrada. like wliam rehnquist, hufelix black and hugo, the solicitor general cage didn't not srve in the j

the supreme court was right there. we actually have the opportunity to stand at the lectern in the supreme court, facing these justices, which is a very powerful thing. the airport in baltimore is named after him. we had a standing ovation every evening. much of this, some of this was for my performance but i have to give credit where the credit is due. most of that is because of his legacy and his work. as a hometown person. tavis: there is no follow-up question here, i am just curious. you mentioned that certain justices came to see this, including sonia sotomayor. what about justice thomas? >> he was not there. tavis: where was i? [laughter] >> you were waiting for me to take you out. tavis: i was just asking. a little birdie told me that this show is even better now than when i saw this on broadway. >> somebody said this to you? tavis: i cannot imagine this. >> this is certainly much deeper and much richer, because i had a couple of years to let this grow inside me, and having grown to washington, where all of this

court ought to -- the supreme court ought to wait and the parties ought to wait before asking the supreme court to take a case until the case is sort of well and truly over, when it's not in the middle of things. now, i don't want to overstate that. that's a presumption. it's not a flat rule. it's a presumption against interlocutory review. but it was something that we -- that we weighed in the balance. here we had a presumption against interlocutory review, and we had some good reasons for thinking that our case would be made stronger if we did not take the case in an interlocutory posture but, instead, waited for the remand to be completed before we went to the court and asked the court to review the ninth circuit decision. >> well, i appreciate that position. i will look at it and review it. it does appear, however, that your position was in harmony with the position that the aclu took, who was on the other side of the case. and i see no harm in taking -- attempting an interlocutory appeal, and i do note that they took it in the third circuit solomon amendment case and promptly reverse

supreme court. i will also comment on justice stevens' departure. generally looking at the year at the court -- a fewwthings stand out. this is a big year for the roberts court and for chief justice roberts on that court. chief justice roberts was in the majorrty more frequently than any other justice on the court. he was in the majority 92% of3 he dissented it almost -- in almost only a few cases. the last most frequent dissenter was joseph kennedy. this eclipse or went past joseph kennedy as the person in the middle in the majority of the most. to give you a point of comparison, justice stevens dissented 22 times this term. looking forward, justice stevens, the most frequent justice to disagree with chief justice roberts is leaving the court which one might think would lead to even greater unanimity or at least greater agreement on the roberts court. second, i think it is fair to say that the court this year was a conservative but minimalist court. it showed that it would walk tall but perhaps tak

the supreme court agrees with this. they took the position sensibly with respect to organizations dealing with the intimate associations and a deeply held religious beliefs. it seems the next thing you have to do is to ask whether or not something which cannot be done by a direct correlation can be done by a sta organization in terms othe way in which it admits and excludes individuals. justice ginsberg was correct when she said this involved a limited public forum she was woefully iorrect when she said that somehow or other you can impose the kind of regulations that you would never be able to impose by way of direct regulation. even if you take the stipulation that this was not done on a discriminatory basis, you would still have to say that the%+ statute was unconstitutional. the two other cases i would like to talk about is one of the is that political speech case. the first amendment gives itself a strong presumption. the only way where you could have liberty of speech is to allow voluntary associations to get toge

a program the supreme court let stand . >> we're a public plan. we're that public option. and i don't think you noticed anything but the american flag on city hall when you came here. we didn't replace it with the canadian flag. the sky didn't fall in. the world didn't come to an end. >> suarez: and fred de sam lazaro tells the story of one man's attempt to bridge the digital divide in one of johannesburg's poorest neighborhoods. one phone call at a time. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: chevron, this is the power of human energy . b nsf railway. and by the bill and melinda gates foundation dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy, productive life . and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> suarez: there was no holiday in the battle with that blown oil well in the gulf of mexico. b

the supreme court agrees with this. they took the position sensibly with respect to organizations dealing with the intimate associations and a deeply held religious beliefs. it seems the nex thing you have to do is to ask whether or not something which cannot be done by a direct correlation can be done by a state organization in terms of the way in which it admits and excludes individuals. justice ginsberg was correct when she said this involved a limited public forum she was woefully incorrect when she said that somehow or other you can impose the kind of regulations that you would never be ae to impose by way of direct regulation. even if you take the stipulation that this was not done on a discriminatory basis, you would still have to s that the%+ statute was unconstitutional. the two other cases i would like to talk about is one of them is that political speech case. the first amendment gives itself a strong presumption. the only way where you cld have liberty of speech is to allow voluntary associations to get toge

now has the supreme court involved. host: we will take on the subject -- next up is a discussion about senator clinton's south asia visit. our guest is matthew lee, who has traveled with secretary of state clinton. we will have that discussion. we will be right back. >> coming up at noon eastern, reairs of network television talk programs. at noon, david gregory, host of "meet the press" talks about the economy with treasury secretary tim geithner. then a discussion on race relations with the former obama white house communications director and the president and ceo of the national urban league, followed by an onair editor at cnbc. at 1:00 p.m., on "this week," chris christie and tim geithner. chris wallace, welcomes new gingrich and former democratic chairman howard dean. a look at race relations with the reverend jesse jackson. on "face the nation," the host talks about race in america, with the vice chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights. , a professor of cornell and a professor of princeton university. on "sta

issue comes to the supreme court. are we looking at the kagan expected confirmation at a court that's going to be 4-4 with kennedy being the principal swing justice? >> i think, yes, that's what it has been for the last few years ever since justice o'connor, who sort of filled that swing role shared it when justice kennedy really retired in 2005 -- the roberts court, it's been 4-4 with kennedy swinging back and forth. there is no reason to think that that will change because elena kagan seems likely to vote with the liberals as did the justice she will replace, justice stevens. i think kagan might surprise us now and then but by and large i think it will be in a case like this -- the best bet is four conservatives on one side, four liberals on the other side, square feet kennedy deciding who wins. >> charlie: thank you, stuart taylor. al hunt, thank you very much. pleasure: >> thank. it was a pleasure. ♪ >> thank you. it was a pleasure. >> charlie: jeff bezos is here. he is the founder and c.e.o. of amazon.com, the

court ought to -- the supreme court ought to wait and the parties ought to wait before asking the supreme court to take a case until the case is sort of well and truly over, when it's not in the middle of things. now, i don't want to overstate that. that's a presumption. it's not a flat rule. it's a presumption against interlocutory review. but it was something that we -- that we weighed in the balance. here we had a presumption against interlocutory review, and we had some good reasons for thinking that our case would be made stronger if we did not take the case in an interlocutory posture but, instead, waited for the remand to be completed before we went to the court and asked the court to review the ninth circuit decision. >> well, i appreciate that position. i will look at it and review it. it does appear, however, that your position was in harmony with the position that the aclu took, who was on the other side of the case. and i see no harm in taking -- attempting an interlocutory appeal, and i do note that they took it in the third circuit solomon amendment case and promptly reverse

supreme court. i realize that elena kagan will be confirmed very soon as our next supreme court justice but i'm disappointed by her nomination. i have nothing against her personally but our supreme court is our highest court. i wish our president and all future presidents would appoint people who have actually tried cases. we should try to nominate people who have had experience who understand the heat of the battle, the give and take and decisions that have to be made on the spur of the moment both by lawyers and judges. ms. kagan may be a brilliant woman, but she has none of this experience. i want to read an article in the june 28 "human events" as a man who spent 28 years, our colleague, mr. poe. congressman poe wrote, the supreme court nominee elena kagan has never been a judge and never seen a courtroom from the bench and never had a judge's responsibility. elena kagan has never instructed a jury or ruled on any point of law, never tried a criminal case or even a traffic case. she has not deci

by the way, if this gets to the supreme court, there is a case pending that the supreme court will hear in this coming term about an arizona law that would crack down on businesseswho hire illegal immigrants. and the question in that case is federal preemption. so we may get a preview before this new case gets to the supreme court. we may get a preview of what the supreme court thinks about this whole issue. gwen: why didn't they mention the racial profiling argument? >> because they made a tactical decision. they're challenging the law before it goes into effect. what arizona is saying is we promise, we're not going to racially profile. wait till we do it. watch us in action. that's a better argument, maybe, to make after it's put into effect. but the justice department wanted it challenged before it went into effect. gwen: purely from a political point of view, especially with the argument that it's not a decision just happening before the electric, did anything that happened this week put this off on the back burner, or did it just inflame the issue of immigration to the extent that

supreme court and i think the supreme court will show that arizona was correct. >> larry: jorge, do you think it's going to the supreme court, too? >> it might go to the supreme court but i'd rather -- i would rather have it go to congress. i mean, if they have enough -- if they have 60 votes to extend unemployment benefits, if they have 60 votes for financial reform, if they have 60 votes to get a new justice in the supreme court, how come they can't get 60 votes for immigration reform? i don't think it's an arizona problem, i don't think it's a california problem. it's an american problem -- >> larry: we'll have a lot more time for this. we've got a lot of guests. thank you, jorge. thanks, jim. >> thank you, larry. thank you, jorge. >> larry: two arizona sheriffs face off over the ruling, next. [meow] desperate for nighttime heartburn relief? for many, nexium helps relieve heartburn symptoms caused by acid reflux disease. and for the majority of patients with prescription coverage for nexium, it can cost $30 or less per month. headache, diarrhea, and abdominal pain are possible side e

supreme court? >> absolutely. it will be tested at the u.s. supreme court and i think the u.s. supreme court will show arizona was correct. >> larry: jorge, you think it's going to the supreme court too? >> it might go to the supreme court but i'd rather -- i would rather have it go to congress. i mean, if they have enough -- if they have 60 votes to extend unemployment benefits, if they have 60 votes for financial reform if they have 60 votes to get a naturally judge in the supreme court, how come they can't get 60 votes for immigration reform? i don't think it's an arizona problem, i don't think it's a california problem. it's an american problem -- >> larry: we'll have a lot more time for this. we've got a lot of guests. thank you, mojorge, thanks jim. two arizona sheriffs face off over the ruling next. waking up with morning pain can drain the energy right out of you. fight it with new... it combines extra strength bayer aspirin to treat pain plus an alertness aid to help you get off to a running start. try bayer am the morning pain reliever. i want to fix up old houses. â™

and is it a given that it will end up in the supreme court? >> i think that's where it's headed when you think of the immigration format. certainly this is the case that supreme court needs to give guidance. what jan brewer has done is she's filed an appeal. she says we want to appeal it immediately. the court of appeal now in the 9th circuit will hear this probably with a three-judge panel to decide the constitutional questions that were decided at the court level. i think you'll see the ultimate hearing here in september. >> now, is there any way that the arizona lawmakers could go back and rewrite the law so that they don't have to go through this court procedure or alter it in in any way? >> i think you'll see this abandoned. certainly the unlimited detention while you're trying to ascertain someone's immigration status is very problematic for a federal court as well as that warrantless arrest issue where you can arrest them without a warrant because you believe they play be in a country illegally. those are things that are likely to cause

supreme court last month. that found that one of the elements of conrad black's conviction, a law of depriving shareholders of their services. and the supreme court found that law was too vague. but what it has done is send the case back to the lower court. that will have to look again at the charge and the obstruction of construction. and those pictures of conrad black showing the cameras and he was lead to obstruction of justice. that charge may remain on his record. what we know in the short-term he will appear in court on friday in chicago, the lawyers said that while pending he could return to canada. >> it would seem flat that black granted bail would be well for the appeal. >> there are commentators in the united states saying that if someone leave prison it's unlikely they will return. but we must stress that the judge is yet to make a ruling, whether to squash the conviction or retrial. and serving just over two years with 6.5 years left thus far. >> do we know when conrad black could be free? >> ther

supreme court ruled five years ago that local and state laws are changing. federal law is still federal law. >>> the suspect involved a gun battle with chp on interstate 580 is expected to enter a plea to attempted murder charges in court in the next couple of hours. meantime, police say they their confrontation with byron will qams may have prevented a bigger problem and they know who he was targeting. >> this morning, byron williams has yet to take the stand and enter a plea. a sheriff's deputy told me they still have to interview him and try to get him of before the judge as quickly as possible. he has medical issues. those are the gunshot wounds he suffered during the mass shootout. >> you can hear some of the shots from the intense 12 minute gun battle that took place between chp officers early sunday morning on 580 in oakland. the suspect byron williams has told investigators he hoped to start a receiver lies by traveling to san francisco and killing people of importance at the aclu and tides foundation that promotes social justice. they initially pull

that who is on the supreme court makes all the difference. i never in a million years would have thought that one day i would have in my fate decided by the supreme court, but i did. it all started in 1979 when goodyear hired me to work as a supervisor in their plant in gaedston, alabama. i worked hard, and i was good at my job, but goodyear did not make it easy. i was only one of only a few female supervisors and i faced discrimination and sexual harassment by people who didn't want women working there. at the end of my career someone left an anonymous at work compared how much i earned compared to male managers. i was earning 20% less than the lowest-paid male supervisor. the next day i filed a complaint with the eeoc. goodyear tried to say i was a poor worker and that's why they had given me smaller raises than the men, but after hearingll of the evidence the jury didn't believe them. it found that goodyear had discriminated against me because i was a woman. that was a good moment. the jury wasn't going to stand for a national corporation

live at california supreme court, abc 7 news. >> and thank you. the vietnamese anticommunist activist aaccused of assaulting a popular singer faces four felony counts and a misdemeanor. he is accused of pepper spraying don vin hung during a concert. watch what happens. police say lee dressed as a woman carrying flowers in order to get close to the stage. investigators say his motive was political. lee is being held on $100,000 bail. >> and hayward, chp officers had to use a taiser to try to subdue a man. it happened around 6:45 and there is two cars involve nad crash. one vehicle overturned into a ditch but there are no serious injuries. authorities say a person in one car tried to run away after the crash and was shot with a taser and ran across the lanes. the chase slowed the morning commute. transit officials are apologized after a day of delayed. and it's all in reaction to a new labor contract. the transit union is asked a judge to involume date that contract. a hearing is scheduled for friday morning. >> there is a national transportation sa

three days ago in one of the most closely watched supreme court cases this term, graham versus florida, the united states superior court forbid the sentences of a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide crime. they found such a sentence is consistent with basic principles of decency. i'm proud to say that my firm was co-counsel for the juvenile in this case and wrote the brief for the juvenile in the court. this decision gives our clients, terrance graham, who had received the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. the bad acts he committed as a teenager are not representative of his true character and gives him some realistic opportunity to gain release before the end of his term. i personally understand the importance of the work that you do. but our nation's fiscal crisis threatens your very existence. as predicted 25 years ago by chief justice rose berg , she said the following. we have no difficulty, it seems finding sufficient funds to build more prisons. one of california's largest industries. but each year, public defenders a

the supreme court of the united states have not so held. the supreme court has two precedents on this issue, one from 1976 and one from 2005 and they both support what arizona is doing. the court has held that states pay pass laws to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdiction. and the u.s. courts of appeals, and i've argued many cases around the country on this specific question, have also held that state and local police may make immigration arrests without being preempted by congress. indeed, congress has passed numerous statutes to encourage state and local police to make immigration arrest. so far from usurping federal authority, the arizona law, because it is drafted to be perfectly concurrent with federal authority t actually is not preempted and, indeed, encouraged by federal statute. >> suarez: professor koback, you heard professor gonzalez say that the constitution specifically uses language to assign to itself the authority to regulate these matters. does it? >> yes. and of course the constitution gives congress what

supreme court. and i think that is a necessary process. the criticism that myself and mr. pastor got for asking the justice department to intervene in the case -- the way we answered that, as more elected officials are sworn to uphold the constitution -- as elected officials we are. that was the issue. i think it is better to remain the issue. our democracy has a check and balance. one of the branches is judicial. it was a recourse that had to be utilized. i do not think that obama had a choice on this. i don't think the justice department had a choice in this. it had to be tested because of the implications not only for emigration, but on the supremacy clause of the federal government. that is at stake here. the issue is surrounded by immigration. they're still five or six of the losses that are independent of the justice department. we have not seen the end of the legal wrangling, but this decision now is a very necessary and healthy pause so that people can stop and think. host: when you decided

we're fighting over the supreme court nominee. we'll get to that. >> both parties were for drilling, oil drilling, right? obama came out for that. both parties don't fight gun control, don't fight for gun control. i could name a number of issues. and on afghanistan both parties believe that terrorism has a solution from our military. we don't have a party who stands up for the other point of view -- >> larry: which is? >> i would think at this point they would be saying to themselves, are we creating more terrorists than we are killing, that we just had the times square bomber for, what's his name? faisal? the guy who locked himself out of his car bomb. i mean, al qaeda is not exactly playing the a-team here. remember the christmas day bomber? couldn't blow up his pants. this guy couldn't make gasoline explode. you know, yeah, let's spend a trillion dollars and two-thirds of our military fighting these people. i don't understand that view of it. i think john kerry said well in the 2004 election when he ran on this idea that terror

judge, then supreme court judge, then appeals court justice. she was appointed to all those positions by republican governors. just a month ago on the appeals court she decided a case based on a state law requiring only nurses give insulin shots to diabetic children in school. some schools had pushed to allow other trained staff to administer the injections. nurses were in such short supply, some students might not have been able to get the insulin they needed. in the end, cantil-sakauye up held the law. >> it's not the role of a judge to impose his or her own personal views. she understood that and she essentially said if there is a flaw in the scheme, it's for the legislature to fix it and not for a judge to try to rewrite the statute. >> reporter: both her parents were farm workers. her mother in the philippines, her father on sugar cane plantation in hawaii. cantil-sakauye is married to a sacramento police officer and has two daughters. >> i really expect her to be one of the best chief justices ever in the history of the state of californi

and the supreme court tookkup on review. this area would get a fairly detailed prescription from the supreme court about how to go forward because processes can refer to things like software or biomedical engineeeing there was an iiportant need for clarity as to what is protected by patent at what can be protected with other intellectual property law. this me against the backdrop of the supreme court moving aggressively in the patent area, overturning the federal circuit time and again in cases where the lower-court hears patent appeals add other specialized areas of law had weighed the balance too heavily toward patent owners and not enough towardermitting disseminion of new ideas. judging by the number of attorneys at law firms to have publicists who seek to have them quoted in articles involving the large community, it turns out, that was the most important case because i'm sure bob's e- mail crashed with all sorts of offers for third-party experts to talk about this decision but instead the decision was nothing. the cour

i understand the arguments that were made before the supreme court. but i think they made it clear that there was an opportunity to craft it more narrowly and i think the judiciary committee has done a good job in doing so. i am pleased this was one of the areas where congress has been able to come together, people on both sides of the aisle to act quickly in an area that's important to avoid demeaning us all. mr. speaker, cruelty to animals is not something that is just sort of an eso teric issue. -- esoteric issue. this is something that speaks to the fundamentals of whether our communities will be livable, whether or not we can relate positively to one another. there is study after study that documents that people who are abusive to animals are also people who are likely to be ain busive to their fellow human beings. it is a broad, far-reaching problem we have in our communities still, having worked with the committee in the past on issues that relate to animal fighting, there is a dark subculture here with people who get satisfaction, emotional, s

. >>> it could be a first for the state supreme court. the latest nominee is fillapina and would be the first asian american justice if confirmed. simon perez with what could be an even bigger first for the court. >> reporter: this 50-year-old is on track to be the next chief justice of the california supreme court after her nomination by governor schwarzenegger. >> she's been the first on a number of occasions. >> reporter: she would be the first asian chief justice in california and would preside over the first majority supreme court. she would be replacing ron george tipping the ballot 4-3 towards women. any reason why you made her chief justice as opposed to one of the sitting justices. >> we thought she was the best choice to fill chief justice ron george's shoes. >> she's been a judge almost 20 years. >> reporter: starting in 1990 as april sacramento municipal court judge, then -- a sacramento municipal court judge, then superior court judge and court justice appointed to all those positions by republican governors. a few months ago