whereas today except for elena kagan -- the court that gave you brown versus board of education none of them except one was a federal judge and the one none of you will even remember. not earl warren, not william douglas, not hugo black, sherman minton. anyone remember sherman minton, he was also a senator. he had a lot of political experience. today except for elena kagan all the justices were sitting federal appellate judges at the time of their appointment. the judicialization, you rise been the judiciary itself and here is how it begins, by going to a fancy law school, often, you know -- or college in new york or in adjoining state, doing a clerkship, becoming a baby judge and working your way up through the system. i told you that's john roberts who learned his law, learned how to be a judge by studying at the feet of the great henry friendly. merrick garland studied at the feet of the same great new york city judge. it's the rise of new york in some ways, the great universities. here is one way to put it and then i'm going -- we're going to move to questions and answers. just i

whereas today except for elena kagan -- the court that gave you brown versus board of education none of them except one was a federal judge and the one none of you will even remember. not earl warren, not williams douglas, not hugo black, sherman minton. anyone remember sherman minton, he was also a senator. he had a lot of political experience. today except for elena kagan all the justices were sitting federal appellate judges at the time of their appointment. you rise been the judiciary itself and here is how it begins, by going to a fancy law school, often, you know -- or college in new york or in adjoining state, doing a clerkship, becoming a baby judge and working your way up through the system. i told you that's john roberts who learned his law, learned how to be a judge by studying at the feet of the great henry friendly. merrick garland studied at the feet of the same great new york city judge. it's the rise of new york in some ways, the great universities. here is one way to put it and then i'm going -- we're going to move to questions and answers. just if you think about th

whereas today except for elena kagan -- the court that gave you brown versus board of education none of them except one was a federal judge and the one none of you will even remember. not earl warren, not william dougla, not felix frankfurt, not hugo blah, sherman mint0 n. anyone remember sherman minton, he was also a senator. he had a lot of political experience. today except for elena kagan all the justices were sitting federal appellate judges at the time of their appointment. the judicialization, you rise been the judiciary itself and here is how it begins, by going to a fancy law school, often, you know -- or college in new york or in adjoining state, doing a clerkship, becoming a baby judge and working your way up through the system. i told you that's john roberts who learned his law, learned how to be a judge by studying at the feet of the great henry friendly. merrick garland studied at the feet of the same great new york city judge. this is the rise of new york in some ways, the great universities. here is one way to put it and then i'm going -- we're going to move to questi

appeal goes to justice elena kagan, who can decide alone or refer this to a full vote in the court. >> new hillary clinton e-mails, new questions about her links between the state department, her foundation and now her campaign. the panel joins me after the the panel joins me after the br you won't see these folks at the post office. the panel joins me after the br they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. to the clintons and that's not going to go away at any time. >> james? >> what greater way to engrashiate myself? first of all with respect to what the fbi investigated and didn't investigate, they reviewed the e-mails but have made very clear their investigation was limited to the handling of the classified information and not even the contents of the e-mails and when he was specifically

and it's really funny, because if you watched the hearings for elena kagan the other day, one of the questions they asked her, you know, was, like, "where were you christmas day?" because that was the day of the bombing. and she was at first, like, very defensive, because she didn't know, whether, you know, it was a terror question, or whatever. and they're like, "no, we just want to know where you were." and she laughed, and said, "well, like all jews, i was probably at a chinese restaurant." and in new york city especially, it's sometimes twice as popular at least, compared to your next popular... your second most popular day. because, you know, for a long time chinese restaurants were the ones that were open on christmas. and it just became this interesting american jewish tradition. and it's specific to america. i mean, it's not like they're doing this in israel. >> hinojosa: it's also because of the fact that these are two immigrant groups that are not christian. >> yeah, the two largest non-christian immigrant groups. and they... you know, so chinese restaurants are open on sun

toobin: so is barack obama and elena kagan. snja scioscia mayor -- otomayor turned out to be more left than centerleft, but not a lot. charlie: is she the most liberal? mr. toobin: she and ginsburg are close but sonia soto mayor has taken the lead and decided to be the voice of the black lives matter movement. i think that's very significant, important, and useful. i think merrick garland would be another vote to cut back on citizens united, the case about campaign finance. charlie: it was mentioned by her in the speech repeatedly. mr. toobin: another vote for trying to roll back the restrictions on voting rights that many states have imposed. i think he would vote -- if you look at stephen breyer, he votes with ginsburg almost all the time. they vote together almost all the time. so do the four conservatives. this is something that republicans are upset about. the liberals are in lockstep and we lose roberts on health care, we lose kennedy on gay rights. it turned out to be very significant. charlie: what does the loss of just

toobin: so is barack obama and elena kagan. he's turned out to be more left than centerleft, but not a lot. charlie: is she the most liberal? mr. toobin: she and ginsburg are close but sonia soto mayor has taken the lead and decided to be the voice of the black lives matter movement. i think that's very significant, important, and useful. garland would be another vote to cut back on citizens united, the case about campaign finance. charlie: it was mentioned by her in the speech repeatedly. another vote for trying to roll back the restrictions on voting rights that many states have imposed. i think he would vote -- if you look at stephen breyer, he votes with ins burgle most all the time. ginsburg almost all the time. they vote together almost all the time. so do the four conservatives. this is something that republicans are upset about. lockstep andare in we lose roberts on health care, we lose kennedy on gay rights. it turned out to be very significant. what does the loss of justice scalia mean for the court? mr. toobin: epic.

appeal goes to justice elena kagan, who can decide alone or refer this to a full vote in the court. >> new hillary clinton e-mails, new questions about her links between the state department, her foundation and now her campaign. the panel joins me after the break. test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test >>> what we turned over were more than 30,000 e-mails i assumed were already in the government system, bret, because they were sent to state.gov addresses. >> sure but there were some that were recently discovered and turned over. >> no, that was in the state department, not in me. i turned over everything. >> the state department said that they have to release 15,000 e-mails by the deadline, a couple of days before the debate. are you concerned about that? >> no. >> because i would be terrified if my e-mails were released. >> but, jimmy, my e-mails are so boring. >> yeah. mine aren't. >> i'm so embarrassed about that. they're so boring. we've already released, i don't know, 30,000

the real sports person is elena kagan, our colleague. >> and it used to be -- we should start this up again -- every once in a while, we would invite a guest to liven the lunch table conversation. thinking back on past years, we've had supreme court justices, one from south africa, one from india. we've had secretaries of state. condoleezza rice was a lunch guest. the head of the zoo, which is a smithsonian institute. and michael khan, who heads the shakespeare theater. we've had presidents of the european court of justice. we had the presidents of the european court of justice and the european court of human rights. you had only two so far who have been repeat lunch guests. and those were alan greenspan and jim wilkinson, who not so long ago headed the world bank. and the reason is that those two have an uncanny ability to eat lunch and speak at the same time. [ laughter ] >> but ruth, that's stopped since i got there. >> it has. we should start it up again. >> i don't know. i wasn't a part of that tradition. but i do know that the justices have fascinating guests who come join them.

. >> and so is president barack obama and elena kagan. sotomayor has turned out more left than center left. >> rose: is she the most liberal member of the court? >> yes. she and ginsburg are close but i think sonia sotomayor, especially on criminal matters, has really taken the lead and decided to be the voice of sort of the "black lives matter" movement, in effect, on the supreme court, and i think that's very significant and important and useful to have someone like that on the supreme court. but i think merrick garland would be another vote to cut back on citizens united, another vote which is the case of campaign finance. >> rose: that was mentioned by her, i think, in her speeches. >> repeatedly. another vote for trying to roll back the restrictions on voting rights that many states have imposed. signing he would vote. if you look at stephen breyer's record, he votes with ginsburg almost all the time. the four ricials on the court, ginsburg, sotomayor, kagan and breyer, they vote together almost all the times. >> rose: as do the cons

the real sports person is elena kagan, our colleague. >> and it used to be -- we should start this up again -- every once in a while, we would invite a guest to liven the lunch table conversation. thinking back on past years, we've had supreme court justices, one from south africa, one from india. we've had secretaries of state. condoleezza rice was a lunch guest. the head of the zoo, which is a smithsonian institute. and michael khan, who heads the shakespeare theater. we've had presidents of the european court of justice. you had only two so far who have been repeat lunch guests. and those were alan greenspan and jim wilkinson, who not so long ago headed the world bank. and the reason is that those two have an uncanny ability to eat lunch and speak at the same time. [ laughter ] >> but ruth, that's stopped since i got there. >> it has. we should start it up again. >> i don't know. i wasn't a part of that tradition. but i do know that the justices have fascinating guests who come join them. and every once in a while we will get a smaller group of justices together in someone's chambe

the real sports person is elena kagan, our colleague. >> and it used to be -- we should start this up again. every once in a while we would invite a guest to liven the lunch table conversation. thinking back on past years we've had supreme court justices, one from south africa, one from india, we've had secretaries of state, condoleezza rice was a lunch guest, the head of the zoo, which is the smithsonian institute. and michael khan, who heads the shakespeare theater. we had the presidents of the european court of justice and the european court of human rights. you had only two so far who have been repeat lunch guests. and those were alan greenspan and jim wilkinson, who not so long ago headed the world bank. and the reason is that those two have an uncanny ability to eat lunch and speak at the same time. [ laughter ] >> but ruth, that's stopped since i got there. >> it has. we should start it up again. >> i don't know. i wasn't a part of that tradition. but i do know that the justices have fascinating guests who come join them. and every once in a while we will get a smaller group of

-- elena kagan the last with trial spirits was thurgood marshall. i don't know if i'm correct but if you could check me out. i don't understand why tween 9 of the best and brightest can't agree on a 5-page document. >> guest: if i may explain a somewhat cryptic statement, kermit roosevelt was a cia official in the united states who helped initiate a coup d'État in a ran in the 1950s which has led to a lot of bitterness towards the united states and iran. i don't pretend to be an expert but that is the reference. as for why the supreme court justices can't agree i have a lot of sympathy for the justices because this is a question i often get about the supreme court. why disagree so much? why can't they be judges, not politicians? why can't they put politics aside and reach legal decisions? if you look at the controversial issues before the supreme court, if you look at affirmative action, same-sex marriage, all these divisive issues, there are not apolitical answers to these questions. these are questions that are as much political and legal. you ca

our former circuit justice, john paul stevens, and our current circuit justice elena kagan. each of them has generously given their time to be with us this evening, and i'm very much looking forward to this conversation. so thanks to both of you. [applause] >> justice stevens, let me start with you. you joined the supreme court on december 19, 1975, after being confirmed unanimously by the senate. and you left the court on june 29, 2010. the world changed quite a bit over those 35 years. do you think the supreme court also changed, either in the nature of the cases, or in the way the justices went about their daily work, or any other way you might identify? or do you think the court is a constant? let me first say one briefing. i want you to know that he also was a very good caddy. [laughter] mr. stevens: he actually caddied for me more than once. [laughter] mr. stevens: to answer your question i'm reminded of barren on white he said that every time , there is a new justice on the court, it is a different court. changest summarize the just in terms of time that goes by, but

how about in the case of sonia sotomayor and elena kagan, both said during the confirmation hearing said i think cameras in the courtroom would be a great idea. now you ask them, i don't know, i'm worried about the effect on the deliberations. to me, the arguments against cameras in the supreme court are terrible arguments. there are no witnesses to be intimidated. this is just lawyers arguing. the importance of the subject matter is unquestioned. it's their candy store. they don't want open themselves up to much scrutiny. one thing that will happen is i do believe the justices will eventually allow live streaming of the audio of supreme court arguments because they're already microphones, already are -- they release the audio at the end of the week when they have arguments. i think that will be their concession to the modern world, and i think they will recognize correctly that takes the heat off. video would be different in fairness to the justices you would have to put in cameras, have to change the lighting, and i think they should, but it would be a significant change. the live stre

the last -- aside from elena kagan the last justice that had trial experience was thurgood marshall. if you can check me out. and i just don't understand why nine of the best and the brightest can't agree on a five-page document. >> guest: okay. let me just -- >> host: karen, thank you. >> guest: thank you for your question. let me explain the cryptic statement. kermit roosevelt was a cia official in the united states who helped initiate a coup d'etat in iran in the 1950s, which led to -- has led to betterness towards the united states in iran. don't pretend to be an expert but that's the reverence. as for why the supreme court justices cannot agree, here i have sympathy for the justices. this is a question if often get. why can't they just be judge, not politicians. not >> guest: why can't they just put the politics aside and just reach legal decisions. of you look at the controversial issues before the supreme court, if you look at affirmative action, abortion, same-sex marriage, all these sorts of issues, the are not apolitical answers to these questions. these are questions that

kagan, both of them during their confirmation hearings both said i think cameras in the courtroom would be a great idea. now you ask them, oh, i don'ttno know. i'm worried about the effect on the deliberations. to me, the arguments against cameras in the supreme court are terrible arguments.. there are no witnesses to be intimidated. this is just lawyers arguing. the importance of the subject matter is unquestioned. it's their story. -- their candy store. they don't want to open themselveses couple too much scrutiny. one thing i think will happen in the next decade or so the justices well evegetablely way -- eventually allow live streaming of the audio of supreme court argumented. there already are -- if they release the audio at the end ofi the week when they have arguments. think that will be their concession to the modern world, and i think they will recognize correctly that takes the heat off them for video. video would be different in t fairness to the justices you'dul have to put in cameras, have to change the lighting, and i think they should, but it would be a significant change