There are a handful of questions that come up. Nobody has dealt with this issue more than i have. I was governor of a state with a 1200 mile border. Sincee been doing this 2000. Better security, not building a wall . Mr. Perry lay it out and use common sense. Which one of these can happen quicker . Which one is more effective . , andu just build a wall you do not have the other aspects, all you have done is spent a lot of time and money. When we talk about strategic fencing, when you have personnel , aviation assets, that is a virtual wall. If that is what they are talking about, they need to lay it out. It is kind of like hope and change. That probably meant Something Different for you than it did for her. Building a wall can mean a lot of different things. Lets be specific about how we are going to deal with this. As a governor, i do not have the opportunity to be nonspecific. I had to have answers to the challenges. I had to have answers for the masses coming in from louisiana katrina. Answers. That is why i asked people to take a look. Do you want the person leading this country to have a record of dealing with real challenges and how they respond to them . Or do you want somebody that talks about these ideas . So does your plan include building a wall . Mr. Perry what do you mean by a wall . You are falling in the track. Tell me what youre all is. Your wall is. How long will it take . I have no idea. Mr. Perry me neither. That is the point. Until you as these individuals what they are talking about, americans are looking for solutions. They are tired of rhetoric. Tired of washington saying they are going to do something and then they dont. I clearly have a way to the secure the border. Personnel, strategic fencing, placement. Our road to the white house coverage of the candidates continues from the iowa state fair on cspan, cspan radio, as thecspan. Org candidates walk the fairgrounds and speak at the soapbox. Friday morning at 11 00 eastern, it is ted cruz. On saturday, Chris Christie avenue and bobby jindal at 1 00. Joined the twitter conversation dmrsoapbox. On the next washington journal, on the efforts to combat islamic terrorism. Matt blunt. Later, Jason Williamson of the aclu. You can join the conversation with phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. Is liveton journal every morning at 7 30 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Thursday, Rick Santorum talks about integration policy at the National Press club. We join his remarks at 11 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. This weekend on the cspan networks, politics, books, and american history. On cspan saturday, live coverage of candidates at the iowa state fair continues. We hear from Chris Christie at noon and bobby jindal at 1 00. Sunday at 6 30, scott walker hold a town hall in nashua. Cspan2 is live at the mississippi book festival, featuring discussions on history and biographies. Sunday morning at 10 00, author fer shares thoughts on the Obama Administration relationship with millennials. Goldday at 5 00, andrew farb on architectural landmarks. Films on a 00, three program administered by the Johnson Administration to improve relations between the police and community in washington dc after the 1968 Martin Luther king assassination. Get our complete schedule at www. Cspan. Org. Next, a discussion on the first 10 years of the Supreme Court under john roberts. Current and former solicitor annuals spoke at the American Bar Association meeting in chicago. This is 90 minutes. Good morning. Good early morning. It is nice to see all of you on this beautiful morning in chicago. Welcome to the Showcase Panel on 10 years of the Roberts Court. Am kannon shanmugam. If any of you remember where you were on september 3, 2005. But i was at a College Football game with my father. The first game of the season, if memory serves. Tv after thethe game and saw a breaking news on cnn that William Rehnquist had died after a short battle with cancer. That triggered a very fastmoving series of events that culminated in the confirmation of john roberts at the next chief justice of the United States. Within a month, he was sitting in the center chair of the Supreme Court hearing oral argument. For me, it is hard to believe that was 10 years ago. Exactly from the date that we sit here today. We are going to talk about the number of aspects of the last 10 years. I will just briefly introduce the panelists and talk about the format. To my right today is miguel estrada, a partner at gibson dunn in washington. He has been there for almost two decades in is one of the best known advocates before the Supreme Court. He has argued 22 cases before as a lawyer int the Justice Department and then in private practice. Liptak,ft is adam Supreme Court correspondent for the times. He has been a correspondent since 2008. He has covered most of the Roberts Court and other legal issues before. Rather like a former baseball player, he turns into a commentator and his best is himself a lawyer before going inhouse at the time. So he brings a perspective of someone who knows of what he speaks. Is nicole saharsky. She may be a regular person, but she is an extraordinary lawyer. She has argued 23 cases before the Supreme Court. She is an assistant to the solicitor general, so she serves in the office that handles government litigation for the Supreme Court. She has been there since 2007. Is that about right . She is the longestserving assistant in the office and one of the finest advocates before the Supreme Court. I know that from personal experience, having argued against her last fall in the omnicare case. In terms of the format for this morning, we have approximately 90 minutes. We will just kind of chat amongst ourselves for most of that time, but we will take questions from the audience. Send me a too shy, tweet, and i will read a question. Questionshave a few submitted on twitter earlier this week which we will get to at the end. Let them start with a general question for all the members of the panel. I will start with adam. If we had to talk about substantive areas of law, and i promise we will not get deeply but ihose issues today, want to start with general observations about the style and overall approach of the Roberts Court. I will put the question this way if you have to think of and identify a distinctive characteristic quality of the Roberts Court, any aspect of the Roberts Court, what would that be . The i will start with chief justice taking the spot of chief justice rehnquist, which was not the spot for which was nominated. He was nominated to the Associates Justice to replace Justice Oconnor. Athink Justice Roberts may be different figure from chief Justice Roberts. I think you may have voted differently because he has an institutional perspective. He is the custodian of the courts authority, prestige, legitimacy. , it ledg the cheek spot to Justice Alito taking Justice Oconnors spot. You now have 11 versions. We have oconnor, then alito. Then elena kagan. The only switch is alito from oconnor, and that is the characteristic. Involving, in cases abortion, campaign finance, race , voted differently than oconnor would have. That is my best shorthand way of saying what is distinctive. Kannon we will talk over the course of the panel of the central role of Justice Kennedy and changes in court membership. Miguel, you have a unique having spent much of your professional career in front of the Rehnquist Court. Anyone is wellplaced as to comment on the styles. Chief would not interrupt you in the middle of the word if if your time was up. The new chief is more generous with the clock, which never would have happened in the Rehnquist Court. Adam is right that the changes in membership since 2005 have done a lot to define what we think of as the Roberts Court. The lawe cases in which thegoing one way, and addition of Justice Sotomayor or ,as shifted from Justice Scalia who was trying to move the law in a prodefendant way. You cannot think about the Roberts Court without thinking about several of people in 2005. It is a different port because rehnquist is no longer there but tomayorcause kagan and so are very different. Kannon any further observations . Nicole when i think about the court and what the chief said at confirmation hearings and the iree, he pledged to be an ump and take a measured approach. It is hard for the public to see if that is happening, because you hear about the big cases Like Health Care and gay marriage where the court is not taking a measured approach. Amount of cases, the Court Decides cases narrowly. Very far ahead of where they need to be to decide the case. The chief himself is very measured. The point you made is good that chief Justice Roberts is very different from Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts is aware of the courts role in america. Case, hey marriage read dissent roosevelt. We had from the bench. We had never hear him read dissent from the bench. He is not Justice Scalia or alito. We were actually talking about, and we remember a time where he read dissent from the bench . He takes a very cheaply approach. Approach. E chiefly that is the only way i can describe it. For the next few minutes, i would like to talk style. He chief justices his personal style, the way he conducts himself in oral enda. Nt, and his ag he has talked a lot about the judicial role and judicial modesty. We are not going to go in any particular order. Does anybody want to weigh in on a particular aspect . On a bench of smart lawyers, he is the smartest. A legal craftsman. Very good writer. Opinionsnd kagan right. You read the faqs section and you understand what is going on. They make it crystal clear. Kannon he is charming and awfully tough at oral argument. The old chief was nasty and dismissive in a very charming. Way. You knew he did not give a darn. He was just yanking your chain. Some argument where, if he did not like the position you are arguing, he would cut you off really quickly. During one case where a red light went on and he said, one minute for a bottle. Rebuttal, but that was that. The old chief had a more congenial mannerism. Sometimes you get on his bad side. But i think he has a better understanding for what it is to be on the other side of the bench. Because he was there so many times. He is gentler with people. Not always with the sgs office. Miguel he used to be there. Kannon was he tough on you because he was in the sgs office . Nicole there have been a few cases that he and Justice Alito see government overreaching that he is not happy with. A lot of the things he gives the government are hard time are not hope rival high profile cases. Something that would get people out of bed in the morning. Kannon like this . [laughter] nicole he questioned me aggressively for five minutes. I am doing my best, why are you yelling at me . Times, when he says things like, i cannot believe the government would say x. But you work for the government. Anyone watching at home, lawyers in the sgs office make the minimum wage. Let me turn the discussion back to 2005. We did not answer the second part of your question, does he have an agenda. I have written that he has. I am sure he thinks he does not. I am sure he decides cases one at that time. But there seems to be cases, in particular about race, that light of his curiosity and assertiveness. This chief may care more or less about federalism than the old chief. Thatn i do want to get to and where the court is on substantive issues, but what the court is interested in. Let me ask a last question about personal style. We have a chief justice who rehnquist, was one of the pallbearers at his funeral. I am curious to what extent he modeled himself, early on, on the late chief . He came into an interesting situation where he was joining members of the court that been together for an unprecedented period of time. Has he been more like the late chief justice . Adam i am not the right person to answer. But i do think the fact that the clerked and are so highly credentialed is characteristic , which is that all lawyers who attended harvard or yale, with the exception of kagan, no one who has run for elected office. Quite unlike Justice Oconnor, who was a public person who served in all three branches of arizona government. They do have that in roberts. The old chief talked about this, that there is a tendency in american judicial like to become more like the europeans. You do not have what the brown court look like. Former governor, former attorney general, making highprofile decisions, but rather credentialed lawyers who only wanted to become a judge. As in europe, where being a judge is a lifelong career. Man . N is he his own miguel absolutely. In the obamacare case, we wonder if he can read, but he is his own man. Adam is right. They are all skilled technical lawyers. Mourn the passing of the world court. Warren court. The opinions are incomprehensible. But it is good to have a withssional, skilled court professional lawyers. I do not think we need to have a governor whose ostensible purpose is to bring something other to the law. That is where we are. Of lets take a out invitation to look at substantive areas of the law and pick up the question he was trying to pose to himself. How does the court change in terms of its priority . One of the questions i got was, can the panel talk about the courts evershrinking docket . Is the docket shrinking . And where is the court focusing its energy . I do not think it is shrinking. People have relatively short memories. In the 1980s, the court heard 150 cases on the merits every. Ofect of in september 1988, they got rid of mandatory jurisdiction. Most of the cases the court was hearing were challenges in state proceedings that had no business being in Supreme Court. It was mandatory jurisdiction. All manner of things that are important to the parties, but not to the country. Since 1988, you have seen a sharp drop in the number of cases the court hears. Around 55 to 78 a year. I do not think it is shrinking. But i think the court is exercising more care now that he has choice in the cases he takes. And the chief justice, coming has a business background, had some influence, from what one can tell, into the composition of the docket. The court used to take one patent case every three decades. To flip take several the federal circuit. Returnsral circuit every now and again on patent cases and makes you think you should have a specialized court. Kannon in regard to this aspect of our discussion, he seems relatively deferential to the government views. Nicole he tends to agree with government views. Aat a lot of people see is lot of business cases. Most oft have a dog in those fights, but we had been in some of them. In private practice at the beginning of the Roberts Court, i remember the things the Business Community was up in arms about, punitive damages. Was not a lot on the business agenda. Now there are classaction concerns. Even in areas like security fraud, the government has an interest in those. That has been a serious attempt to get some cutbacks on the part of the business unity. Even unions cases for next year. Those are cases that the government has more or less interest in because of the Business Community. We have cert proofs, and i cannot say they have deferred to all of us, but it is interesting to see cases of that type. Kannon , what is going on with those changes . Adam reuters did a nice study on this. The rise of the specialized Supreme Court, which continues to dominate at the cert and merits stage. The increasing likelihood that a Business Group will find the right case and the light right lawyer to launch a petition, has aided the courts in increasing its business docket. I would mention arbitration. The Business Community has done well with this court. It is attributable in part to the ones inmber private practice the small number of lawyers who dominate. Kannon miguel, do you agree with that . Miguel you can always knock on the door, but they can always slammed the door in your face. Thinking back to the rehnquist starr wrote an article bemoaning these Business Issues he tried to take to the Supreme Court to no avail. At the time, the court was not that interested. It is maybe part of what adam said, pushing the open door. More receptive to believing those issues are as important as the subordinate act,e of the Death Penalty for which they take several years. Part of it is organization on part of the Business Community. Rise of the chamber of commerce, thinking what issues do we want