Host on the next washington journal, Terry Jeffrey and elanor clift discussed the current state of the American Dream in light of Court Rulings and race issues. Then the terms Big Supreme Court decisions and your comments. Washington journal live at 7 a. M. Eastern on cspan. We are partnering with our cable affiliates as we travel across the United States. Join us this weekend as we learn about the history and literary life of omaha, nebraska. One of the first advocacy groups fighting for racial equality began their. Re. It had the tradition as the city if you were black, you needed to keep your head down and be aware you are not going to be served in restaurants and stay in hotels. When the club began their operation, the idea the term civil rights was not used. They termed at social justice. The idea of civil rights was so far removed from the idea of the greater of the community of omaha or the United States that they were operating in a vacuum. They were operating without a net. There were not support groups, not the prior experiences of other groups to challenge Racial Discrimination and segregation. We look back to the Union Pacific and how the construction of Union Station helped omahas economy. One of the premier Railroad Companies was founded with the Pacific Railway act. It combines several Railroad Companies to make Union Pacific and they were charged with building the transcontinental railroad. So they started here. West and Central Pacific started on the west coast. They met out in utah. That is really what propelled us even further. We become that point of moving west, one of the gateways to the west. See all of our programs from omaha today at noon eastern on cspan 2 and sunday afternoon on cspan 3. The Supreme Court term ended this week with major decisions on health care redistricting and samesex marriage. Next correspondence from the Washington Post, the New York Times and the l. A. Times talk about those cases, the rulings and their own experiences covering the court. This is an hour and a half. Welcome. Thank you for joining us. Im arthur spitzer. I work at the legal director of the local office of the American Civil Liberties union, but i am not wearing that hat. Im wearing my hat as a former member of the committee of that section of them bar. Our tahnkhanks to our hosts in our room. Thanks to marcia tucker, the firms technical staff are making the arrangements. Thanks to cspan for covering us again this year. If you have any problem with the back of your head being on cspan, you can take this opportunity to slither off to the side. It is not being broadcast live. You can watch the video on the cspan website starting sometime tomorrow. Many thanks to my former aclu colleague chris, the executive producer of this show, coordinating many of the requirements of the d. C. Bar. Our main sponsor on this section concentrates on matters involving Court Administration and rules, the relationship between the bench and the bar in all aspects of the lawyers relationship to the profession. The section focuses on improving access to justice for everyone in d. C. It is one of 20 sections of the d. C. Bar. 15 other sections are cosponsors of todays program. They are listed on your program. The sections carried on most of the bars work. They cover most areas of legal practice. If you are member of the bar and not involved in this section, we encourage you to become involved. If you are an aspiring member, we encourage you to remember to get involved after you graduate law school and a couple of years. On a personal note, if you are not yet a member of the aclu, you can sign up at www. Acullu. Org. We will be privileged to hear this afternoon from a panel of journalists who have been covering the Supreme Court for a total of 112 years. I will issues them in order of seniority. On my right is tony morrow. He has covered the court since 1979. First for gannett and usa today. He joined the Washington Times in washington legal times in [laughter] the Washington Times does not cover the court. And continues as Supreme Court correspondent in 2009. David savage on the right has been with the Los Angeles Times since 1981 and covers the court since 1986. In recent years, he has been covering the court for the chicago tribune. He is the latest edition of congressional quarterlys guide to the u. S. Supreme court. Joan is an editor in charge for Legal Affairs at retuuters. Her most recent book is the rise of soanya sotomayor published last year. She is the author of biographies of justices kennedy, scalia and friends as they oconnor. Frances day oconncis day oconnor. This year, she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in explanatory journalism. I will ask her to tell us about that later. On her left is Robert Barnes who joined the Washington Post as a reporter in 1987. Since then, he has been Deputy National editor, National Political editor and the metropolitan editor, but he decided to return to reporting in 2000 five and began covering the Supreme Court in he realized he did not need three years in law school to not practice law. [laughter] on my far right adam, who took over the New York TimesSupreme Court beat seven years ago, but he has a much longer history with the times when she first joined as a copy boy in 1984 after graduating from college. He then went back for a law degree in. In 1988 in 1992, joined the Legal Department advising the paper and representing it in litigation. A decade later, he became a reporter covering legal issues. His work has also appeared in the new yorker, vanity fair, Rolling Stone and other publications. His spring, he served as marshall of sprint Supreme Court. To hear a decision appointing a guardian for don quioxote. Glasgow about that later i will ask him about that later. Another panelist told me she was homesick and unable to leave the house, so we will be without her this year and hope to see her again next july. This is not a panel of litigators analyzing case law. That are lots of those you can go to all we will talk about some case law but our plan is to talk about the court as an institution and collection of individuals and about covering the court as journalists. I plan to save some time for questions and answers. There are two microphone set up. If questions occur to you during the program, please jot them down and i will give you a heads up when it is time to go to the mics. Finally, i was going to say they should be evaluation forms but they are not. To be the reminder you just got, check your email in the next couple of days. You will get an email asking you to fill out an evaluation form. We really appreciate it if you do. We read those evaluations and make changes on how we run this Program Based on those comments. So to begin, last term ended with hobby lobby which was a very complicated decision with multiple issues and opinions, but this term ended with what seemed to be much more straightforward samesex marriage. Obamacare, yes. Confederate flag license weights,plates no. In my being flip about that or did you find the big cases easier to report on this year than last year . David . David well, there were a lot of Big Decisions and fairly easy to report. There was not a lot of complexities and divided votes. It is very nice because in this era, adam and bob and i talk about all the time we have to file stories within a few minutes, particularly with the health care, gay marriage i have done it long enough when i can remember i can actually read the whole opinion, listen to what the just what the justices said. Now, you have to move very quickly. Fortunately, the outcomes were clear. The holdings were very similar. Not a lot of complications. It was written within 10 minutes so we are grateful to the court. [laughter] arthur another thing i noticed was how match how much the front page decisions were spread out over the month of june. This was for the most part one leading decision per decision day. On june 1 was the Abercrombie Fitch head coverings. June 8 was the jerusalem passport. June 18 was the license plates. June 22 was the california raisins and then obamacare and samesex marriage and Death Penalty each on a separate day. Sometimes it were many frontpage decisions on the same day. Do you think that was a complete accident or the court has some interest in spreading those highprofile decisions around to make your job easy or to get better coverage of each decision . Tony . Tony i think the court is not very interested in making life easier for us by spreading things out. I think the only exception may be they decided not to hand out samesex marriage and Affordable Care act on the same day. That they realize that our heads wouldve exploded. They did not want to see that. Apart from that, they are quite adamant about saying they just released the opinions when they are ready. I dont think they spread it out. There is a classic story prior to Justice William rehnquist, after one day in june after we all got seven or eight opinions on the same day hundreds of pages, we went to him and said could you please spread them out . He said, well, why dont you just save some for the next day . [laughter] tony it shows great understanding of how journalism works. I think the new chief may be a little more sensitive to this, but maybe other people have different views. I dont think they really care that much. Arthur i thought that she had to have some fun maybe at our expense of the end of the last day. There were three decisions that were big in all of which we knew would be writing about. When he finished, he said i have two retirements to announce and i felt like i was going to throw up for a second. It was Justice Scalias secretary and someone else. [laughter] bob it was not quite what wouldve made our day horrible. We had these pretty Big Decisions and they decided to take a bigger for an big affirmative action case and then when we were done, they let abortion clinics those are five legit stories. The very biggest cases do not come on the last day which typically is the pattern. I cannot remember another term where the case that was most awaited did not come at the end. Hobby lobby it was going back to 1992. Typically, the hardest stuff comes at the end. There we were on the thursday of last week getting the Obama Health Care law case and then friday getting samesex marriage. Fortunately, everyone up here was ready for that but we had mentally thought if they were going to end on monday, maybe that would come on monday. It goes to show we may be ready no matter what. Sometimes really Big Decisions will come before the last day. It feels like the grand finale of the july 4 fireworks and then boom, boom boom. Last year, many of you reported and we talked about how the justices had a greater proportion of unanimous decisions than they had for decades. About 65 and how it was affecting opinions that have fallen from 52 the year before to only 31 . We talked about whether chief Justice Roberts was making good on his comments to be a unifier. This term, just the opposite. Unanimous decisions were down to 40 . There were 68, more than twice than last year. Is the chief losing his magic powers or what is going on . Bob . Bob i think it is every term is different and that is what we have learned all the time. The issues that are presented to them are what really is controlling about how they do things. We all said last year that even though there were a lot of unanimous decisions, they were not really manifest. They were unanimous. They were unanimous in the judgment, but not the reasoning. The court was just as divided by ideology as it was this year. I think that really has to do with what is up for them to decide every term. If the justices were to take the same cases each year, we would have a better time measuring them yeartoyear, but i think the statistics may be misleading just like so many people talk about their was as liberal tilt this year. It was the nature of the cases. Next year, we will up here be saying the conservatives did it again. As bob mentioned, how broadly they were rule. If they are going super narrow, they will get more unanimity. You will find in the details more split. There has been talk about the liberals being more disciplined this year and falling in line with a single majority or dissent and not having a lot of concurrences. I think that is that was notable, but most justices dont feel that way. Justice alito once said i asked him why he writes dissents when he could have just joined or why he writes concurrences when he couldve joined the majority. He said it is like somebody coming to your front door and asking you to sign a petition. Would you sign it if you dont believe in it . They all feel like they have the responsibility to say their own piece about important cases. Arthur you think that goes for the samesex marriage case . There was a line in the scalia dissent that even if he wanted to achieve that outcome he would hide his head in the paperback before joining the formulations of Justice Kennedy. [laughter] tony Justice Kennedys majority opinion, he installed the institution of marriage. He says it is unique. Fulfillment for those that find it an essential for our aspirations that yet Justice Kagan who has never been married signed the opinion. I wonder if she thinks marriage is essential to her profound hopes and aspirations. Justice sotomayor who was married signed the opinion. And, what i thought was the most interesting was actually not putting his head in the back but what he said about even as the price to be paid for a fixed vote, he would not join such an opinion. What we have always heard from the justices is they dont trade votes. They expect their own views and so was he lifting the curtain . No way because kennedy was the one who wrote it. He would have been the fifth more conservative member but as we all know this is kennedys area of the law. He is not a reluctant fifth to signon to with the liberals on gay marriage. Justice ginsburg at the American Constitutional Society addressed the trading boat idea and says it does not happen. [laughter] you can imagine a decision on would people join the kennedy opinion. They would write separately in a little more legally. Is innt that interesting that there were no concurrent opinions or talking about marriage is not the only way to find personal the film it fulfillment. Justice ginsberg talks a lot about her motherinlaw and she said maybe it helps to be a little deaf. [laughter] negative felt that it was already a 54 decision, something as momentous as samesex marriage, you would like to have as many votes as possible. So, trying to dilute it further with concurrences or cap approvals half approvals wishes stick with the majority. Lets just stick with the majority. John roberts said in his dissent if this institution was good enough for the carthaginians and the a ztecs, who are we to change it . I thought it satellite a setup for stephen colbert. The aztecs, what the . [laughter] i thought they were known for human sacrifice not family values. It turns out you can fight in international law. [laughter] speaking of expecting ones opinions Justice Thomas wrote 31 opinions which may be a record. 37 total opinions and 19 dissents. 11 concurrences. He obviously is a believer in not trying to petition and expressing his own views. I wonder do you have any ideas on why he is writing so much . Is he trying to make up for never asking questions . How do these separate opinions how you cover the cases . I think Justice Thomas has always been a contrarian who lets the go zone way. Always goes his own way. He always viewed himself probably as i think for myself and go my own way. The entire time he has been on the court, he devoted a lot of effort every year, he writes some very long separate dissents making a completely different view on why the Voting Rights act is wrong or whatever or rights a lot of the separate short dissents. I think it is keeping him him to say im going to have my own say. I thought was interesting he often writes that he does not think something is constitutional and is not going to give up on it. He will make that point again and hope others will eventually come to his point of view. It is kind of interesting when the Affordable Care act, Justice Kennedy joined the majority in the not right and it did not write that he thought people act was unconstitutional. In addition to writing dissenting and occurring concurring opinions the have sometimes expressed it orally. I think they were for oral the fences four oral defenses. In your coverage of the case, do they get more column inches from your editors . Is that something you