General. He was there for a long time. Both of these guys are there often. They win a lot. They lose occasionally. They are very good advocates. I am going to start by talking about news. Before thewo cases Supreme Court pending, waiting for the justices to say what if anything they want to do with them. One is from the d. C. Circuit. The d. C. Circuit ruled that when Congress Asks for information from President Trumps Accounting Firm related to whether or not they want to pass ethics legislation that would require the disclosure of axes, thents t d. C. Circuit said you have the right to do that because it is in the course of legislation. The second case from new york, the state case actually it is a city case. The District Attorney from manhattan has issued a grand jury subpoena. This time it is related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and one other person, im really not sure. The Second Circuit upheld that a criminalr investigation. They are both sitting at the Supreme Court. The Trump Lawyers have asked the court to stop those subpoenas from being enforced. The question now is will they stay preventing those things from going into effect . There is a temporary stay in effect right now. Rari . They grant certio meaning will they hear those cases . I want to go down the line and ask each of you what you think they will do. First of all, it is great to be here with all of you. Butnted to apply to cfr, that long application scared the heck out of me. Door. Ad i got in the back when the president says here my case, they generally hear the case. If i had to predict, my guess is they would not take the cases. They would stay out. They are probably pretty happy with the careful reasoning by the lower court opinions. The trump briefs are pretty extreme in their legal views. I think it would be better for the court to stay out all and let the process unfold. Which means trump has to produce. Or masar has to produce. I would say i am inclined to agree with neil. Term term, the first term Justice Kavanaugh was on the court, it was extremely divided. The justices took up quite controversial issues. Whether that was by design to discussion out of the conversation and lower the temperature. This term they are taking up almost every hot button issue. Once thate cover, the make the headlines. Abortion,be about flashpoint social issues, daca, they are all on the plate this year. I know that is a real concern for some of the justices this year, including the chief justice. There is a concern by some of the justices, including the chief justice, that Court Packing is on the minds of a lot of democratic president ial candidates. Enere is an effort to less this flashpoint with the court being part of the conversation, resolve cases narrowly where they can, no big swing for the fences opinions on these hot button issues. May, this could be one where they just take a pass. I agree with neil on that. Just let the Second Circuit decision stand. Im inclined to agree with neil, but my final point is predicting the Supreme Court right now is really folly. You cannot tell it is too soon. Too new of a court. We once could predict them based on argument. We cannot do that anymore. I will just echo neil in saying that it is a delight to be with you. I forgot to say that. I am really happy to be here. It was implicit. Thes a 1988 graduate of school of foreign service. I have long been a fan of the organization. I took the long way around. It is a delight to be here. I will take a slightly different tack, not because i necessarily agree with that, but i think it will be interesting. I think there is a decent chance that the court will take up the d. C. Case. That one is. One is purely fedearl. I say that mostly because i think that there is something of involves the president in his individual capacity but raises questions to which there is protection for the president in his individual capacity. Cliou go back to the famous case, the court took that case involving president clintons immunity from it private case. The court took that case even though there was not a circuit split. I think a lot of people think because the court took it got excited about the prospect that they might be grading some immunity that protected president clinton. In the end, they decided 90 against the president. This is a context where the court almost out of deference to the institution of the presidency might take this case, but i think if they did, it would be a mistake to view the fact that they took the case as a precursor to them ultimately ruling in favor of President Trump. In that respect, the clinton v. Jones case may be a predictor. I agree that they care about the institution of the presidency, but overall this chief justices concern seems to be the institution of the Supreme Court and the judiciary. Unlike the 1990s where you had a fairly regular president who did not go and attack the court every time a decision did not come out in his favor, here you have a resident who is very comfortable doing that. President who is very comfortable doing that. Maybe the better move is to stay out of it altogether and not invite that backlash from the president. I could make the counterargument that actually since in the normal course the in a caset grant cert like this, the best way to reassert normalcy is to grant the case and rule the way you might otherwise rule. If you look at precedent, the president s argument is a tough one. End, youl that, in the might send what is ultimately the message that you want to send, which is we are going to behave the way we would be handled this kind of issue at any other we would have handled this kind of issue at any other point. In order to do that, this all occurs within the context of an Election Year, which makes it even more dicey. The Supreme Court by decision, if they can, like to attend by tradition, if they can, like to avoid doing that. Im not sure if that tradition still exists. Brown versus board was delayed because there was an election coming up. The question is would they hear it this term . They have to expedite it to do that. Im not one of these people who jot and tiddle of how many days are left of the various priests to get in this briefs to get in this term. The house has laid out its schedule for the ruling in june. Right in the middle of the election. In a term when they already have a lot of these extremely controversial social issues. I think if they hear it expedited, it would be so are if they decide this thing in 2021. There is precedent for that. The nixon tapes case went on a very fast schedule. The Supreme Court heard the case two months later and decided it 15 days after that. Start to finish under three months. Other than that, mrs. With you,et me start paul, you have at least two and maybe more of the very big cases before the court. One of them is the gun rights case that is going to be argued right after thanksgiving. Sexye is also the very un but incredibly important case involving the Consumer Financial protection board. Yes, i got that right, cfpb. Which is the board that was created under president obama, enacted by congress, but unlike other agencies, it only has one head. And just as kavanaugh as a lower court judge wrote very clearly that he thought that was unconstitutional, at least then. Paul is in a very unusual position. Because the Trump Administration has abandoned defending the structure of the boar there is nobodyd, to defend it. The Supreme Court appoints somebody to defend it. Enter paul clement. Talk for a minute about why this is an important case and how different it is. I dont think you have ever appeared before the Supreme Court without a client. In a sense i feel very empowered. This happens from time to time. Usually lower profile cases and usually in a circumstance where the government decides it cannot defend the judgment below. The court will appoint a lawyer as an amicus to the judgment below. It is usually a much lower profile case. They will appoint a relatively recent law clerk to defend the decision. Thats not you. I really thought my moment had passed to get Something Like this. It is empowering. I literally have no client. I was thinking, do i have to open up a new clinent matter . Do i have to run a conflict check on the client . The answer is no. I dont have a client. I am a Court Appointed amicus. The other day, i was thinking about the process of putting my brief together, and in every other case i have ever had i have to build in a week to let the client reviewed the brief. 30an finish this brief up seconds before i file it. All kidding aside, let me say why i think this is such an important case. It is such an important case because the specific question in the case is whether or not the removal provision for the head of the cfpb, which is a four removal for cause condition is constitutional. The issue in this case is like the thread on the sweater, which if you start typing on it t ugging on it, potentially the whole sweater comes undone. All of the is independent agencies, the ftc, the fcc, the alphabet soup of agencies that all have these for for causeionsause protections. They usually have multi member bodies. There are a lot of institutions in this town that are very familiar to the operation of government that have these for cause protections. It is a great place to have this discussion. If i knew where we were in the building, i could point. The Federal Reserve, that also has this for cause protection. The Federal Reserve is a great example of why congress imposes these kind of restrictions because there are certain issues in the world that we deal with at the National Level where it is nice to have a degree of insulation for discharging a particular duty or responsibility where it is not just going to change with whoever is president. We a fairly long time now thought of Monetary Policy is something that should just not change with each and, that , notd be more consistent having every member of the Federal Reserve board serve at the well of the president. The court could decide in a way that says this particular provision is unconstitutional, but nothing else is called into question, but that would not be that easy to decide in that way because, if anything, if the ultimate question is how much control does the president need to have over an agency, it seems a little weird because to draw the distinction and say it is ok to have six people that serve with for cause protection, is better than one. If the president was asked going to remove somebody for cause, it would be easier to remove one. Han six it seems like if anything the distinction would cut the other way. It is a case worth watching because it is not just about this agency. It is really about our government and whether you can even have these agencies that are more insulated from the president because i think some of the conservative justices think, and you can see this injustice, not in Justice Kavanaughs opinion that this is unconstitutional. You argued and the court adopted your position last year, which we can talk about for about one minute. Looking forward, there is a huge religion case this year which paul is also involved in. Undeniably iseing a shift on the court from an era that began in the late 1940s and early 1950s and accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s when the value between the separation of church and state was the lodestar that everyone was aiming for. Today it is much more of an accommodation between church and state. If you talk lawyer talk, separation of church and state is you do not establish a religion. You try to prevent anything that helps the establishment of religion. On the other side, much more accentuated is the free exercise of religion. I think the court and our society has moved in a direction much more accommodating to religion. There is this old case called lemon v. Kurzman. It put up a strong Wall Separating Church and state. That led to decisions that i thought were indefensible. It ordered the tearing down of 1925eace cross, erected in to commemorate those soldiers that fought in world war i. I thought that was ridiculous, and we asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court agreed to cross should stay. You can have religious symbolism, but they can also acquire other meanings. Moving the court is now instead of those 54 bitter decisions into something that is closer to 72. Breyer and kagan have a more accommodating view. I will just sketch very quickly. It is the latest in this long line of cases involving essentially School Vouchers is the broad rubric for these cases. This one is structured more as a tax credit. I dont think that really matters at the end of the day. The question is essentially when a state sets up a program to allow this, are they actually forced by the federal constitution to include religious schools in the program, or can they limit it by their own state constitution to just private, nonsectarian schools and exclude religious private schools . Does that constitute discrimination on the basis of religion . This case illustrates how the court has moved over time. Cases, theyon said you could not have a state Voucher Program at all. It is too much of a link the between religion and the state. The Supreme Court about 15 years ago overruled that and said canes, if they want to, include religious schools within their Voucher Program and not violate the federal statute laws. If they are going to have a Voucher Program at all, do they have to include the religious schools to avoid discrimination on the basis of religion. This illustrates how this has moved in a much more accommodation is direction and some of the activity has moved from the establishment clause prohibits favoring religion to does the free exercise clause mandate that you do not discriminate against religion . Discussed, we have not only daca but other immigration cases. We have abortion this year. We have gun rights. You have heard about the religion clause cases. Writes in the title the title viiin case. We have a lot of stuff here. Why do you think the court has tried for so long to keep the cap on the bottle and now it is overflowing or what . I think that is potentially true in some of the cases. Last term was a pretty quiet term. If you look back, you and i have covered the court for a long time. We have had blockbuster terms before where there were five or six incredibly controversial issues. Is not unusual. What is different this year in the Supreme Court is that it is still a court in transition. Obviously weourt, have a new justice and a relatively new justice that President Trump put on the Supreme Court. There is great hope on the part of conservatives that Justice Kavanaugh will be a more reliable conservative vote then justice kennedy. Justice great hope that gorsuch will be a solidly conservative voice like Justice Scalia was. There is great fear on the part of liberals that both of those things will happen. There is also fear that President Trump might get another nomination. Is back atsburg work. She does not look like she has missed a beat. She is as active as ever during oral arguments. That she looks like she is thin. Her voice is strong. Woman who this is a had three or four weeks of every day radiation this summer and then did 11 Public Events in september. When i say 11, most of those were multiple events where she goes somewhere and does this and this and this. Not locally. Did one where i interviewed her in little rock, arkansas, in the Verizon Center that was sold out, 15,000 people. You just see this little person in the middle of this. Them that they had to mic her, but that place, you could have heard a pin drop. It is just an amazing phenomenon. It is true that i have known her for a very long time. I cannot explain this except to say that i think people and maybe young women in particular and old women want to have a living hero. That has been so relatively rare. It has been a long time since Justice Oconnor was on the court. As close as i can come to the explanation. I dont know if anybody else has any theories. Speak up now. [laughter] let me just finish. Nina obviously has more personal experience with this. If anybody is going to be leaving the court, certainly Justice Ginsburg seems to be in good health, fine now. It is almost like if you look at a court, and when i talked to law schools, you remember theres this thing called a polaroid picture. First it is a little blurry. It takes a while for the picture to emerge of what this court is going to be like, what kind of justice Justice Kavanaugh is going to be. Twoially the first term or can be misleading. Justice souter, his first year, he voted most often with justice rehnquist. That changed. He became one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court. I dont think that is going to happen with these justices. Now to it is a mistake try to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do. It is too soon. Argument has changed with the departure of justice kennedy. The oral argument used to be a time when justices would ask a you could really tell where the justices were going and what they thought based on their questions. The questions were important because they are trying to sway justice kennedy. That has changed now. Without justice kennedy, the whole composition and the feel of the oracle oral argument its different. Get to talk in the beginning now. The justices understood that they were interrupting people so much that the council simply could not have a moment to make a comprehensive argument. Now, they have two minutes at the beginning of an argument in which counsel is allowed to speak uninterrupted. Theyre been a couple of interruptions because they forgot but two minutes is longer law longer than you think. Definitely what you are used to arguing in front of the court, i dont know how many of you have been to an argument but when you guys get up there to longer law longer than you think. Start arguing and you say may it within ae court, nanosecond one of them is saying counselor. Honestly, the biggest change is that you used to spend a lot of time thinking about your first three sentences. Thats all you were going to get out. Now, you have to think about three paragraphs. As she says, two minutes doesnt sound like a lot but given what we had grown used to, this is an exponential expansion. It was an argument that actually very much lent itself to this. I have a couple of different theories. I could when little or big. When the two minutes allowed me to lay out a menu, having laid out the menu, i could direct the questions back to the original menu in a way that was more effective than if i had just gotten interrupted. Classically, a Supreme Court argument starts with a lawyer coming up and saying at the beginning of his or her argument, i have three points and you will never discuss what points to an three r. This allows you to lay out the visas of your case quickly. Halfhour per side for oral arguments, i average 60 questions in a 30 minute argument. Every 30 seconds, getting a question. I do think that the new rules give us more time. I havent argued in front of them with the new rules yet but i will. Gone, rich say kennedy the tenor of argument has changed. Observers to the court will watch what he is saying and think he is leaning this way or that way. Kavanaugh is the same way. Who try toe people ask the hardest question on the other side of the advocate. I can never from their questions figure out where they are going. In the old argument, when kennedy was on, it wasnt just the justices who were trying to pitch their questions it was also the advocates. In this onecused spot on the court and now i feel like it is much more of a pure intellectual exercise in which youre just trying to make the best arguments for your side and not trying to tailor a tour that one vote. I am supposed to turn this over to the members for their questions. You were all and avoided invited to join this conversation. A reminder, this is on the record. Wait for the microphone to come around. Then, you can stand and state your affiliation and let her rip. Question . We have a question there. It seems to me that the cases are more predictable than you have suggested. Whereas the chief justices said they are just justices not republican and democratic justices, that doesnt seem to be the way it is. It seems to me, this is very challenging because of the theosition it composition changes and composition does not become important a lot of things are going to be overturned and the nature of the Supreme Court will have changed. Sometimes i think thats right or sometimes things are more predictable than others. Can i do think the hot button focus of those cases of skewers the more general workings of the court. Two years ago, they were unanimous in 60 of the cases. You have to go back to 1940 to find a similar rate of unanimity. To whichizens united was called fcc versus at t. The yearn in the case after the Citizens United decision was to corporations have privacy rights . The headlines were like oh its going to be a predictable decision. The lawyer for the company stood up and said there is an exception for personal privacy, corporations are persons. Companies have privacy rights. Justices desk justice immediately interrupted and said personal and person and you are giving me a definition of person. The lawyers that i dont see where that makes a difference. What about craft, crafty . Pastor, pastoral . The lawyer didnt have an answer to that so the chief justice rights a unanimous opinion siding against the company saying we dont have privacy andts and on the last line says we trust at t will not take it personally. [laughter] me add, i dont think youre right. Who spends too much of their time thinking about the court and how they decide cases, then thejustices thinkon suggests i do they are slightly less predictable than the question suggests. To give the premises of the thetion their fair do, court has a real challenge right now which is they have nine justices, five appointed by president s of one party. For appointed by president s of the justicesty and themselves have fundamental differences about how you should go about interpreting the constitution that end up dividing in the highest profile hot button issues along the lines of the president that appointed them. Publicery easy for the that is used to processing Everything Else in political the fivesay conservatives did this, the four liberals did this. The justices are not processing the cases that way but they are processing the cases through their judicial philosophies that happened at this moment in time to dovetail 100 with the political affiliation of the president s who appointed them. It has not been that way this starkly before. Souter. Ded to justice you could point to Justice Stevens, two republican appointees who ended up voting much more like liberal justices if you could use that term. It showed, why were they doing that . Stevens in a chicago kind of way was kind of a republican but he had a judicial philosophy that was very different from the current president what the republican president is looking for. When you have a court that is divided along judicial philosophy lines that are 100 correlated with the Party Affiliation of the present president who appointed them, you have a problem you have to manage. The chief justice who has very few tools in terms of managing the court because he only has one vote and the assignment power, he has this challenge of stewarding this institution that i think legitimately is not deciding all of the cases that way but is deciding them in an 99. 9 of thehere people are going to see it that way. I am going to take the moderators exception here. I would argue that the Democratic Party at least up is pretty election h the same party it was you know people were appointed in the 70s and 80s. Thats not true for the gerald fordarty rid who appointed Justice Stevens said not long before he died he said if i had one act to be most proud of it would be the appointment of Justice Stevens. Brand ofrds republican barely exists anymore. Between theces justices i think are more stark. That, in my business we feel that narrative fuel that narrative. Observers are casual whose knowledge of the court comes from within my see on the way we cover the court sometimes feels that. Fuels that. Its more that they are judicial conservatives and judicial liberals which means their view of interpreting the constitution and statutes are different. That is a concern and the groups also fuel it. The Interest Groups on the left , their right at times rhetoric is irresponsible. And wrong. Sometimesributing to misleading views of the court. Nine very smart people engaged in the struggle over how to interpret the constitution. Get they, wanting to right answer that they believe is the right answer. I have covered the court for 25 years. I have lost respect for a lot of institutions in this town but the Supreme Court is not one of them. If you have not gone to see argument at the court, you should do so. Every time i am up there, its the only branch of government that still works. It is remarkable and almost a crime to me that americans cant see it. There is an easy solution for the court. They can just grant more cases for us and decide them unanimously hence showing that politics doesnt matter at all. I think theres a consortium concern for the court and the justices. What i thought it was certain that daca was going to come to the end i said im not going to break that. Polls, a lawn school just had a poll that said the Public Confidence in the court as an institution is dramatically higher, twice what congress is and three times the white house. Way more what journalists and lawyers are created the Public Confidence in the court as an institution is still high. It has gone down a lot. Dont have armies to enforce their decisions. We have some more questions over here. I want to turn to this thetion and avoid pejorative words about the Supreme Court that the democratics have been talking about. The last thing i remember being tried in a serious fashion, back in the 1930s it got shot down pretty quickly. Even the president roosevelt had majorities in the congress, what do you think is behind it this time and had you think the Supreme Court reacts or do they react at all to the tensions . They hate it. I think that these are politicians, what the you expect. As long as there was a clear center of the court, it could go either way. I think that liberals thought they would trust in the court. For the first time, they had no input at all. In this election or confirmation. Of either of the two justices now. Hankypankylot of about holding the Justice Scalia seat open. Greatk all of that was for Mitch Mcconnell and republicans and they have maximized their affect with that. The bad side of that is that people who are liberal or even moderates think that the system is a little rate. That leads to what i would generally call cockamamie ideas. All of the justices have spoken out against it. Its a shame we are in this position. Its more than hankypanky. Its a Republican Senate that didnt even give Merrick Garland a hearing. That was playing in putting this court in this political thicket and it is entirely predictable that you were going to have calls how could you not when that is what they did and took that and destroy the process . Terribly good at the court is in this position. I know where that fault lies. I will take issue with that but what i will do is broaden the lens. See when youyou seek dysfunctional confirmation hearings, political candidates talking about expanding the court and Court Packing and the like, to me, that gets back to the idea that the court is deciding so many important issues, so many politically charged issues and congress, by contrast, is kicking a lot of the issues that the framers thought it would decide and wrestle with to either the courts or the executive branch through inaction. I you put all that together, dont know how you can be surprised that in the very few instances in which the political process can influence these nine unelected people who are deciding everything from race, abortion and how to solve the opioid crisis, of course when the political process gets a little opportunity to influence that institution it is by delaying a vote on one nominate or trying to delay another nominee, the constitution doesnt specify the membership of the Supreme Court and had numerous it is, if the court is going to have that much power and decide all of those issues, that theto expect political process is going to touch it where theyre going to touch it. My name is kathleen i teach at the university of miami law school. There are a handful of us in the room who work on International Trade that does not intersect too much with your work except oft it might in the future the nondelegation doctrine and you may know there is a case in the federal circuit now to look at one of the delegations to put on the National Security tariffs. Following in the last term. Welcome your expert views on where we may be headed if not this term but further down the line. Thank you. If you started learning about the nondelegation doctrine, i think you learned quickly there is not that much to learn. Somebody famously said the nondelegation doctrine had one very good day in 1931. It has been all downhill since. Down two statutes on nondelegation theories and it really has struggled with how you apply that doctrine. Explain what it is. For the nondelegation doctrine, for those of you who did not wake up this morning inking about it. [laughter] its the idea that congress can delegate essentially too much legislative authority to the executive branch or to muchsibly delegates legislative power to the executive branch if it gives the executive branch assignments without providing any meaningful constraining direction. That doctrineason has not done well since 1931 is there are a lot of federal agencies out there that are supposed to regulate the public airwaves in the Public Interest and the Supreme Court said thats good enough. If in the Public Interest is good enough, what wouldnt be . Also, there is nothing in the constitution that speaks to us directly so even the justices who would like to have a more robust delegation doctrine, they tend to be the more textualist oriented justices and there isnt a lot of text to point to. About sore andse what the acronym is about, it is closely divided but if you read between the lines, there are five justices on the court right now who have sympathies for the idea that congress is delegating too much to the executive branch. I dont think you have five justices with a view that there is a clean workable administrable line to apply. Its an area bank where litigants could make arguments there is too much delegation doctrine here. If i were to advise one of my complaints about this, i would advise them to stay away from the nondelegation problem and try to focus on something that is specific to this statute that is problematic that the court can say this congress cannot do. This is an issue that will come back up to the court. Maybe in the trade context or easyer context that it is to predict that there are going to resurrect the nondelegation doctrine at least in those terms. I do think there is a court of the nondelegation doctrine which almost everyone agrees with. Congress shall declare war and congress can give that authority to the members of cfr or something. That would be a flatout violation of this nondelegation principle. The cases are interesting because they come close to that hypothetical unlike the other stuff that has been brewing around the court. Those are the ones to watch and see that there may be a revival of the doctrine. There is a question down there. My name is jeff. I am curious as to your views about the chief justice going to the senate in january or early next year and how he is feeling about that and the twitter universe coming after him . I thought about this a lot. Good timing by the way. Stocking stuffer. Im trying to help you plug your book. This chief justice clerk for the last chief justice who presided over the clinton impeachment. He went over every day and presided in such a neutral way that the end he said i basically did nothing and i did it very well. [laughter] i think this chief justice will use that as a model. Impeachment is weird. Weirdial in the senate is in that the chief justice can make any sort of ruling but he can be unrolled overruled by 51 senators. He was not an part of the reason for that as they talked about everything before hand and rehnquist had a parliamentarian sitting on the shoulder senator daschle and senator lott got along better than schumer and mcconnell. These parties tend to, when push comes to shove, to understand that they havent object. The object is to complete a trial and reach a result in quick order. If they have different objectives and one wants to drag it out of the other doesnt, then it gets hairy. Impeachment, that did not end up being a problem and i would greatly success suspect that this chief justice does not want to be making rulings that would get overruled by a majority. Youre going to see him looking very regal but not much else stuffhe may be doing behind the scenes making sure that he understands what everybody wants. I dont think where gone to get see it. You alluded to him looking regal. To me, the interesting question is stripes or no stripes . And i point, he famously think it came from gilbert and in court he showed up wearing stripes on his robes. I think it would be neat if he did it. [indiscernible] can have aginsburg dissenting collar, he should have an impeachment rope that he wears only for impeachments. Read . I would go stripes if i were him. Something to shake it up. It does go to show what we are talking about this term. The court being the center of attention in an Election Year and hacking on the minds of the democratic candidates. Im sure its not where john roberts like to be in january or february. However, by tradition they start or 12 30. 12 00 the option will be to do it well and the question is whether he will be a making an opinion while his listings to some boring debate on the floor of the senate. Anyone else . I am a journalist with al jazeera. I have a question for enough. Could you share with us a personal story about your interactions with the notorious rbg . Maybe something that reveals a little bit about her character or since of humor . She is quite funny at least publicly. She really is a shy person. She is a quiet person. The secret of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is that she is a performer. Its how she got to be good at what she did as a lawyer. Its how she got her job on the Supreme Court. She was not as she would tell president clintons first choice by any means areas he tried others. Finally, he gets persuaded to talk to her and he just falls for her hook line and thinker. And shes a good speech is sometimes very funny on the bench. That is not the person i have known for many years. [laughter] when we were both very young. Youonly story i will tell that is really quite amusing about me more than her is that when i started to cover the Supreme Court, i didnt know anything. Im not a lawyer. I really knew nothing. Maybe the second year or first year i dont remember, i opened a brief in a case which was the first sex discrimination case before the court where they ruled against sex discrimination ultimately. It said that women are covered by the 14th amendment. Covered byare women the 14th amendment . Its postcivil war amendments of the constitution about africanamericans. I flipped to the front of the brave to see who wrote it and it was by a professor named with bader ginsburg. At that time we had little phone booths in the pressroom that were the size of my chair. I go in one of these and i call her up and i get an hourlong lecture. I suddenly knew a lot and thats how i met her. Over the years, thats how i have known her over time. Story that shey is a fascinating person. Its revealing that she cares about it for so long that she took the time to educate you about it for an hour. And she answered her own phone. [laughter] there has been speculation online that one of the reasons why democrats dont need to subpoena Mick Mulvaney and onces now is because impeachment happens, they can call them as witnesses during the actual impeachment trial and the chief justice would rule then we are going to leave the last part of this. You can watch all of our programs online on cspan. Org. The u. S. House is about to gavel and for a