[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11475-11479]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF ELENA KAGAN

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the range of questions for Solicitor General Kagan on her forthcoming 
hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Solicitor General Kagan has issued a fairly broad invitation, in 
effect, on questioning. In an article that she published in the Chicago 
Law Review back in 1995, her comment at that time was, in part, as 
follows:

       When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful 
     discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on 
     an air of vacuity . . . and the Senate becomes incapable of 
     either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately 
     educating the public. For nominees, the safest and surest 
     route to the prize lay in alternating platitudinous 
     statements and judicial silence. Who would have done anything 
     different in the absence of pressure from Members of 
     Congress?

  That is a fair-sized invitation for a little pressure from Members of 
the Senate. I think she is right in her pronouncements, and it is 
something we ought to do. She goes on to write in the law review 
article:

       Chairman Biden and Senator Specter, in particular, 
     expressed impatience with the game as played. Specter warned 
     that the Judiciary Committee one day would ``rear up on its 
     hind legs'' and reject a nominee who refused to answer 
     questions. Senators do not insist that any nominee reveal 
     what kind of a Justice she would make by disclosing her views 
     on important legal issues. Senators have not done so since 
     the hearings on the nomination of Judge Bork.

  Solicitor General Kagan goes on to write:

       A nominee lacking a public record would have an advantage 
     over a highly prolific author.

  There has been some questioning as to whether this nominee has such a 
small paper trail that it will be doubly difficult, or significantly 
more difficult, to find out her views. But in her law review article, 
noting the difference with that kind of a paper trail is, again, 
another invitation.
  The author of the law review article, Solicitor General Kagan, goes 
on to write:

       The Senators' consideration of a nominee, and particularly 
     the Senate's confirmation hearing, ought to focus on 
     substantive issues.

  Well, that, then, raises the question about how do you get answers on 
substantive issues, and what is the value of the substantive issues 
when the nominee, after being confirmed, is on the bench?
  Earlier this week, I made an extensive statement reviewing the 
records of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in their 
confirmation hearings. Although both professed to give great deference 
to Congress on findings of the facts of the record, when it came to 
making a decision--for example, in Citizens United--their judicial 
views were much different.
  Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito talked at length about 
how it was the legislative function to have hearings, compile the 
record and find the facts; that it was not a judicial function, and 
that when judges engaged in that, they were engaging in legislation. 
But when it came to the case of Citizens United, overturning a century 
of a prohibition on corporations engaging in paying for political 
advertising, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito found the 
100,000-page record insufficient. Both of them talked about stare 
decisis and the value of precedent and the factors that led to the 
strengthening of stare decisis. Chief Justice Roberts spoke 
emphatically about not giving the legal system a ``jolt.'' Well, that 
is hardly what has happened during their tenure on the bench.
  So the question which we will put to Solicitor General Kagan, among 
others, is, How does Congress get those promises translated into actual 
practice? And in making the comments about Chief Justice Roberts and 
Justice Alito, I do so without challenging their good faith. There is a 
big difference between answering questions in a Judiciary Committee 
hearing and deciding a case in controversy. But the question remains as 
to how we handle that.
  As expressed in my statement earlier this week, I am very much 
concerned about the fact that there has been a denigration of the 
strong constitutional doctrine of separation of power and that we have 
moved to a concentration of power. That has happened by the Supreme 
Court taking on the proportionality and congruence test, which, as 
Justice Scalia noted in a dissent, is a ``flabby'' test designed for 
judicial legislation.
  The Court has also ceded enormous powers to the executive by refusing 
to decide cases where there are conflicts between the executive and 
legislative branches. I spoke at length earlier this week about the 
failure of the Supreme Court to deal with the conflict between 
Congress's Article I powers in enacting the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act versus the President's authority as Commander in 
Chief. I did that in the context of noting that the Supreme Court has 
time for deciding many more cases.
  These are, I think, impressive statistics. In 1886, the Supreme Court 
had 1,396 cases on its docket and decided 451 cases. In 1987, a century 
later, the Supreme Court issued 146 opinions. By 2006, the Supreme 
Court heard argument on 78 cases, wrote opinions in 68. In 2007, they 
heard argument in 75 cases, wrote opinions in 67 cases. In 2008, they 
heard arguments in 78 cases, wrote opinions in 75 cases.
  In addition to not deciding cases such as the terrorist surveillance 
program and the sovereign immunities case, which I talked about 
extensively earlier this week, the Supreme Court has allowed many 
circuit splits to remain unchecked. There is an informative article in 
the July/August 2006 edition of the Atlantic entitled ``Of Clerks and 
Perks,'' written by Stuart Taylor, Jr. and Benjamin Wittes. In that 
article, the authors point out about how much time the Supreme Court 
Justices have, noting that one Justice produced four popular books on 
legal themes while on the bench, another is working on a $1.5 million 
memoir, and another Justice took 28 trips in 2004 alone and published 
books in 2002, 2003, and 2005.

[[Page 11476]]

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the full article to which I just referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Atlantic, July/August 2006]

                          Of Clerks and Perks


 why supreme court justices have more free time than ever--and why it 
                          should be taken away

               (By Stuart Taylor Jr. and Benjamin Wittes)

       There are few jobs as powerful as that of Supreme Court 
     justice--and few jobs as cushy. Many powerful people don't 
     have time for extracurricular traveling, speaking, and 
     writing, let alone for three-month summer recesses. Yet the 
     late Chief Justice William Rehnquist produced four popular 
     books on legal themes while serving on the bench. Clarence 
     Thomas has been working on a $1.5 million memoir. And Sandra 
     Day O'Connor, who retired to general adulation, took twenty-
     eight paid trips in 2004 alone, and published books in 2002, 
     2003, and 2005.
       All this freelancing time breeds high-handedness. Ruth 
     Bader Ginsburg tars those who disagree with her enthusiasm 
     for foreign law with the taint of apartheid and Dred Scott; 
     Antonin Scalia calls believers in an evolving Constitution 
     ``idiots,'' and carries on a public feud with a newspaper 
     over whether a dismissive gesture he made after Sunday Mass--
     flicking fingers out from under his chin--was obscene. 
     Meanwhile, on the bench the justices behave like a continuing 
     constitutional convention, second-guessing elected officials 
     on issues from school discipline to the outcome of the 2000 
     election, while leaving unresolved important, if dust-dry, 
     legal questions that are largely invisible to the public.
       Many lawmakers are keen to push back against a self-
     regarding Supreme Court, but all of the obvious levers at 
     their disposal involve serious assaults on judicial 
     independence--a cure that's worse than the disease of 
     judicial unaccountability. The Senate has already politicized 
     the confirmation process beyond redemption, and attacking the 
     federal courts' jurisdiction, impeaching judges, and 
     squeezing judicial budgets are all bludgeons that legislators 
     have historically avoided, and for good reason.
       So what's an exasperated Congress to do? We have a modest 
     proposal: let's fire their clerks.
       Eliminating the law clerks would force the justices to 
     focus more on legal analysis and, we can hope, less on their 
     own policy agendas. It would leave them little time for silly 
     speeches. It would make them more ``independent'' than they 
     really want to be, by ending their debilitating reliance on 
     twentysomething law-school graduates. Perhaps best of all, it 
     would effectively shorten their tenure by forcing them to do 
     their own work, making their jobs harder and inducing them to 
     retire before power corrupts absolutely or decrepitude sets 
     in.
       No justice worth his or her salt should need a bunch of 
     kids who have never (or barely) practiced law to draft 
     opinions for him or her. Yet that is exactly what the Court 
     now has--four clerks in each chamber to handle the lightest 
     caseload in modern history. The justices--who, unlike lower-
     court judges, don't have to hear any case they don't wish 
     to--have cut their number of full decisions by more than 
     half, from over 160 in 1945 to about 80 today. During the 
     same period they have quadrupled their retinue of clerks.
       Because Supreme Court clerks generally follow a strict code 
     of omerta, the individual justices' dependence on them is 
     hard to document. But some have reportedly delegated a 
     shocking amount of the actual opinion writing to their 
     clerks.
       Justice Harry Blackman's papers show that, especially in 
     his later years, clerks did most of the opinion writing and 
     the justice often did little more than minor editing, as well 
     as checking the accuracy of spelling and citations. Ginsburg, 
     Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy reportedly have clerks write most 
     or all of their first drafts--according to more or less 
     detailed instructions--and often make few substantial 
     changes. Some of O'Connor's clerks have suggested that she 
     rarely touched clerk drafts; others say she sometimes did 
     substantial rewrites, depending on the opinion.
       There's no reason why seats on the highest court in the 
     land, which will always offer their occupants great power and 
     prestige, should also allow them to delegate the detailed 
     writing to smart but unseasoned underlings. Any competent 
     justice should be able to handle more than the current 
     average of about nine majority opinions a year. And those who 
     don't want to work hard ought to resign in favor of people 
     who do.
       Cutting the clerks out of the writing will also improve the 
     justices' decision- making, by forcing them to think issues 
     through. As the eighty-six-year-old John Paul Stevens, the 
     only justice who habitually writes his own first drafts, once 
     told the journalist Tony Mauro: ``Part of the reason [I write 
     my own drafts] is for self-discipline . . . I don't really 
     understand a case until I write it out.''
       This is not to suggest that the justices should have to 
     spend their time on scut work--reading all 8,000 petitions 
     for review filed in a typical year, or hitting the library to 
     dig up obscure precedents. These are the tasks that law 
     clerks used to do. And this sort of thing is all they will 
     have time to do if Congress cuts each justice's clerk 
     complement from four back to one, as legal historian David 
     Garrow has suggested.
       For much of American history, the life of a justice was 
     something of a grind. Watching the strutting pomposity of 
     modern justices, this ``original understanding'' of the job--
     as a grueling immersion in cases, briefs, and scholarship--
     seems increasingly attractive.
       Justice Louis Brandeis once said that the reason for the 
     Supreme Court justices' relatively high prestige was that 
     ``they are almost the only people in Washington who do their 
     own work.'' That was true then. It should be true again.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this raises the issue about deciding 
these cases where the workload is not very high, where there is a 
recess of some 3 months, extensive travels, and extensive lectures. Now 
they may do what they please, and they will, but there is a balance 
here. The question is: How do you get more cases decided? How do you 
deal with the question of having the Justices put into practice, once 
they are on the bench, what they are talking about in the confirmation 
hearings? That is hard to determine.
  The best way, in my view, and I have spoken about this in some 
length, is by publicizing their failures. I think when we take up their 
budget, for example, it is fair to consider how many clerks they need, 
given their workload. The number started at one, went to two and three, 
and is now at four. Is it fair to consider the recess period? In 
evaluating their budget, we have to be very careful not to intrude upon 
judicial independence, which is the hallmark of our Republic. But on 
the issue of publicizing what the Court does, I think it is fair game; 
preeminently reasonable.
  For decades now, I have been pressing to have the Supreme Court 
proceedings televised. Only a very limited number of people can fit 
inside the chamber--a couple of hundred; less than 300. People are 
permitted to stay there for only 3 or 4 minutes. Twice the Judiciary 
Committee has passed out legislation by substantial margins--12-6, and 
in the current term 13-6--calling on the Supreme Court to be televised.
  When the case of Bush v. Gore was argued, Senator Biden and I wrote 
to the Chief Justice asking that the television cameras be permitted to 
come in. The Chief Justice declined, but did--in a rather unusual way--
authorize a simultaneous audio.
  There have been continuing efforts by C-SPAN to have more access to 
the Court, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
document entitled ``C-SPAN Timeline: Cameras in the Court'' at the 
conclusion of this presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I don't have time to go into it now, 
with the limited time available, but the reader of the Congressional 
Record can see how frequently the Court has denied access to even the 
audio.
  It is a matter of general knowledge that the Supreme Court Justices 
engage in television interviews with some frequency. Justice Scalia, 
for example, appeared on the CBS News program ``60 Minutes'' on April 
27 of 2008; Justice Thomas was on ``60 Minutes'' on September 30, 2007; 
Justices Breyer and Scalia have engaged in several televised debates, 
including a debate on December 5, 2006. All Justices have sat for 
television interviews conducted by C-SPAN.
  A point I have made with some frequency on the floor of the Senate is 
the great importance of the Supreme Court in our government. The 
Supreme Court has the final word. There is nothing in the Constitution 
which gives the Supreme Court the final word, but they took it in the 
celebrated case of Marbury v. Madison, and I believe it has been for 
the betterment of the country. You find the inability of the Congress 
to act. The most noteworthy illustration of that was segregation, for 
years the practice in this country. The executive branch did not handle 
it, but the Court was able to integrate our schools in a recognition of 
the changing values and the flexible interpretation of a living 
Constitution.

[[Page 11477]]

  It is often said that the Court is not final because they are right, 
but they are right because they are final. Somebody has to make these 
final decisions, and I think the Court should do it. But I do believe 
it is of great value if the people in this country understood what the 
Court is deciding.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a statement of some 11 cases entitled ``List of Cutting-Edge 
Decisions of the Roberts' Court.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          List of Cutting-Edge Decisions of the Roberts Court

       Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). A 
     five-four majority of the Court struck down as facially 
     unconstitutional section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act, 
     despite an extensive body of Congressional findings, two 
     Supreme Court precedents explicitly uphold section 203 
     (Austin (1990) and McConnell (2003)), and prohibition on 
     corporation money in federal elections stretching back to 
     1907.
       Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School 
     District No. 1 (2007). In a 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice 
     Roberts, the Court struck down narrowly tailored race-
     conscious remedial plans adopted by two local boards designed 
     to maintain racially integrated school districts, contrary to 
     a ``longstanding and unbroken line of legal authority tells 
     us that the Equal Protection Clause [of the Fourteenth 
     Amendment] permits local school boards to use race-conscious 
     criteria to achieve positive race-related goals, even when 
     the Constitution does not compel it.''
       Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. (2007). In a 
     5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that an 
     individual taxpayer did not have standing to challenge the 
     constitutionality of government expenditures to religious 
     organizations under the Bush administration's ``faith-based 
     initiatives'' program. That conclusion ran counter to a four-
     decade-old precedent holding that taxpayers have standing to 
     challenge federal expenditures as violative of the 
     Establishment Clause (Flast v. Cohen (1968)).
       Morse v. Frederick, (2007). In a 5-4 opinion by Chief 
     Justice Roberts, the Court held that the suspension of high 
     school students for displaying a banner across the street 
     from their school that read ``BONG Hits 4 JESUS'' did not 
     violate the First Amendment. That holding ran counter to a 
     long-standing precedent, Tinker (1969), which held 
     unconstitutional the discipline of a public-school student 
     for engaging in First Amendment-protected speech unless it 
     disrupts school activities.
       Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett (2009). In a 5-4 opinion by 
     Justice Thomas, the Court upended the Court's unanimous 1974 
     decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974), which 
     held that an employee cannot be compelled to arbitrate a 
     statutory discrimination claim under a collectively 
     bargained-for arbitration clause to which he did not consent. 
     The Court held otherwise in Pyett, thereby depriving many 
     employees of their right to bring statutory discrimination 
     claims in federal court.
       Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS (2007). In a 
     5-4 opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court overturned a 
     century-old precedent holding that vertical price-fixing 
     agreements per-se violate the federal antitrust laws.
       Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Lift 
     (2007). In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Roberts, the Court ruled 
     that the McCain-Feingold Act's limitations on political 
     advertising were unconstitutional as they applied to issue 
     ads like WRTL's (which in this case encouraged viewers to 
     contact two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose filibusters 
     of judicial nominees). Justice Scalia went so far as to 
     accuse Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito of practicing 
     what he called ``faux judicial restraining'' by effectively 
     overruling McConnell (2003) ``without expressly saying so.''
       Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder 
     (2009). An opinion by Chief Justice Roberts discussed whether 
     the 2006 extension of 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was 
     supported by an adequate legislative record. Although the 
     court ultimately decided the case on a narrow statutory 
     ground, Roberts made clear that he was disinclined to accept 
     Congress's legislative finding as to the need for Sec. 5, 
     despite an extensive record amassed over ten months in 21 
     hearings.
       Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (2007). In a 
     5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court ruled that 
     Ledbetter's employment discrimination claim was time-barred 
     by Title VII's limitations period, despite the fact that she 
     had only recently found out that the discrimination was 
     occurring.
       Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly 
     (2007). In these decisions, the Court fundamentally changed 
     the long-standing rules of pleadings under the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure while refusing to acknowledge that a 
     change had been made. These decisions created a heightened 
     pleading standard that may impair the ability of American to 
     access the courts.
       District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), In a 5-4 decision, 
     the Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an 
     individual right to bear arms unconnected with service in a 
     state militia, and, in doing, struck down a District of 
     Columbia gun control law that had been in place for over 
     three decades. The majority and minority opinion diverged 
     sharply on the framer's original understanding of the Second 
     Amendment.

  Mr. SPECTER. There is insufficient time to go over them now, but most 
of them are 5-4 decisions. The Supreme Court decides everything from 
life to death, Roe vs. Wade to the death penalty cases and double 
jeopardy. These cases involve the integration issue, religious freedom, 
freedom of speech, collective bargaining, the antitrust laws, and all 
of the cutting-edge questions are decided.
  It is my hope that we will find time on the Senate's agenda--with as 
many quorum calls as we have had we ought to find some time--to take up 
the issue of televising the Supreme Court. And as we approach next 
Monday's hearings on Solicitor General Kagan, we will be pursuing these 
very important issues.
  In the remaining time available, one other matter which I wish to 
comment about--and I have sent Solicitor General Kagan three letters 
setting forth the areas of questioning which I intend to make--is a 
remarkable, perhaps unprecedented, action by the Supreme Court 
invalidating the Arizona clean elections law.
  Arizona set up a law to provide matching funds. The District Court in 
Arizona declared it unconstitutional, but the Ninth Circuit overturned 
the district court. The district court had issued an injunction--that 
is, to prevent the law from being carried out--on matching funds. The 
Ninth Circuit reversed that. The Supreme Court--in an unusual decision, 
to put it mildly--earlier this month, on June 8, put the injunction 
back into effect.
  This is in the context where there hasn't even been a petition for 
certiorari filed. The regular practice--the regular order--is a 
petition for cert, briefs, argument. That is the way cases are decided. 
But here, in the wake of Citizens United, invalidating a key part of 
McCain-Feingold, we have the Supreme Court invalidating the Arizona law 
without even the customary procedures.
  All of this is in the face of congressional action and action by 
states to try to respond to public opinion. A recent Hart poll showed 
that some 95 percent of the American people think that corporations 
make contributions to exert political influence, and 85 percent of the 
people feel that corporations ought not to be able to contribute to 
political campaigns.
  These are among the questions which we will be considering with the 
confirmation proceeding on Solicitor General Kagan. I cited at some 
length her law review article where she is inviting us to do so, 
committing at least in her law review article in 1995 to provide 
substantive answers and acknowledging that someone with a thin paper 
trail, as she has, is under more of an obligation to respond.
  I note the time has expired.

                               Exhibit 1

                 C-SPAN Timeline: Cameras in the Court

       C-SPAN has sought to provide its audience with coverage of 
     the Judiciary, just as it has covered the Legislative and 
     Executive branches of government. The prohibition of 
     televised coverage of the Supreme Court's oral arguments has 
     been an obstacle to fulfilling that goal. Below is a record 
     of C-SPAN's efforts to make the Court more accessible to the 
     public.
       1981--C-SPAN televises its first Supreme Court Senate 
     confirmation hearing with gavel-to-gavel coverage, with the 
     nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor.
       1985--C-SPAN launches ``America & the Courts,'' a weekly 
     program focusing on the Judiciary with an emphasis on the 
     Supreme Court.
       1987--Court permits C-SPAN to originate live Interview and 
     call-in programs from its Press Room.
       2/1988--First letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist requesting 
     camera coverage of Supreme Court.
       11/1988--Participated in demonstration of potential camera 
     coverage in Supreme Court.
       9/1990--C-SPAN airs first live telecast of a federal court 
     proceeding from a military appeals court.
       1991--C-SPAN is instrumental in advocating and implementing 
     a 4-year experiment with the Judicial Conference to test

[[Page 11478]]

     television coverage of civil cases before two federal Courts 
     of Appeals and six District Courts.
       11/2000--Letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist requesting 
     camera coverage of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing 
     Board. Court agreed to release audio only.
       12/2000--Letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist requesting live 
     audio release of Bush v. Gore. Received early audio release, 
     not live.
       2003--Sent letter requesting early audio release of Grutter 
     v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. (Affirmative action 
     cases) Court agreed.
       2003--Requested early audio release of McConnell v. FEC. 
     (Campaign finance rules) Court agreed.
       5/2003--Justice O'Connor participates in C-SPAN's ``Student 
     and Leaders'' with students at Gonzaga College High School in 
     Washington, DC.
       5/2003--Justice Thomas participates in C-SPAN's ``Student 
     and Leaders'' with students at Banneker High School.
       2004--Requested early audio release in the following cases. 
     Rasul v. Bush and Al Oday v. United States; Cheney v. U.S. 
     District Court; Hamdi v. Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Court 
     agreed.
       2004--Requested early audio release of Roper v. Simmons. 
     (Execution of juveniles) Denied.
       2005--Requested early audio release of Van Orden v. Perry 
     and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. (Separation of 
     church and state) Denied.
       1/2005--Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduces legislation 
     to televise the Supreme Court Statement. Read
       4/2005--C-SPAN airs live a ``Constitutional Conversation'' 
     moderated by Tim Russert with Justices Breyer, O'Connor and 
     Scalia. They discuss the role and operation of the Court, 
     among other subjects. Watch
       10/2005--First letter to Chief Justice Roberts offering C-
     SPAN capabilities to provide gavel-to-gavel camera coverage 
     of Supreme Court.
       11/2005--Requested early audio release of: Ayotte v. 
     Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (abortion) and 
     Rumsfeid v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights 
     (``don't ask, don't tell'' policy). Agreed.
       11/2005--C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb testifies before the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee hearing on the issue of cameras in the 
     Supreme Court. Watch/Read
       11/2005--U.S. House passes provisions of Sunshine in the 
     Courtroom Act Statement. Read
       2006--Requested audio release of tape of the investiture of 
     Justice Alito. Denied.
       2006--Requested early audio release of voting rights act 
     cases. League of United Latin v. Perry; Travis County, Texas 
     v. Perry; Jackson v. Perry; GI Forum v. Perry. Denied.
       3/2006--Requested early audio release of Hamdan v. 
     Rumsfeld. (Military Tribunals) Court agreed. Press Release
       3/2006--Sens. Grassley (R-IA) and Schumer (D-NY) introduced 
     Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. Press Release
       6/2006--Letter to Chief Justice Roberts requesting 
     simultaneous release of all oral arguments beginning with 
     2006 term. Denied.
       8/2006--C-SPAN's Brian Lamb interviews Chief Justice John 
     Roberts in one of his first television interviews since 
     joining the court. Transcript/Watch
       10/2006--Requested early audio release of Gonzalez v. 
     Planned Parenthood and Gonzalez v. Carhart (abortion). Court 
     agreed. Press Release
       10/2006--C-SPAN airs live a discussion between Justice 
     Scalia and Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, called `` 
     The State of Civil Liberties.'' Watch
       11/2006--Sent letter requesting early audio release of 
     Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1 and 
     Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (affirmative 
     action). Court agreed.
       11/2006--Requested early audio release of oral arguments in 
     Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1 and 
     Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (Affirmative 
     action) Court agreed. Press Release
       1/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of 
     Davenport v. Washington Education Association and Washington 
     v. Washington Education Association (Union dues). Denied.
       1/2007--Introduction of the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act 
     of 2007 in the 110th Congress, co-sponsored by Sens. Grassley 
     (R-IA), Leahy (D-VT) and Schumer (D-NY).
       1/2007--Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduces cameras in the 
     Supreme Court legislation. Watch
       2/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of Rita 
     v. United States and Claiborne v. United States (Federal 
     sentencing guidelines). Denied
       2/2007--Rep. Ted Poe (D-TX/2nd), a former judge, delivers a 
     floor speech about opening the court to cameras. Watch
       2/2007--Sens. Specter and Cornyn discuss cameras in the 
     courts with Justice Anthony Kennedy during Judiciary 
     Committee hearing. Sen. Specter questions Justice Kennedy 
     directly. Watch/Sen. Cornyn remarks on his experience with 
     cameras. Watch/Watch Hearing
       3/2007--Justices Kennedy and Thomas comment on cameras in 
     the court before a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing 
     on the FY08 Supreme Court budget. Watch Justice Kennedy/Watch 
     Justice Thomas
       3/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of FEC 
     v. Wisconsin Right to Life and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to 
     Life (Campaign Finance). Denied.
       3/7/2007--Sent letter requesting camera coverage of 3rd 
     circuit CBS vs. FCC hearing on Television Indecency 
     Standards. Received permission for audio only.
       8/16/2007--Aired camera footage of Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals 8/15/07 oral argument in two cases on the 
     government's warrantless wiretapping program. Al-Haramain 
     Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush Hepting v. AT&T
       9/11/2007--Aired same-day audio of CBS vs. FCC hearing on 
     Television Indecency Standards.
       9/27/2007--C-SPAN President Susan Swain testifies before 
     House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 2128, Sunshine in the 
     Courtroom Act of 2007. Watch/Read Testimony
       9/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of 
     Medellin v. Texas (Presidential Powers) and Stoneridge 
     Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta (Securities Fraud). Denied.
       10/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of 
     Boumediene v. Bush & Al Odah v. U.S. (Guantanamo Detainees) 
     Court Agreed. Press Release
       11/16/2007--9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Al-
     Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush cites C-SPAN'S request to 
     record oral argument and date footage was televised. See 
     footnote 5, page 14969.
       12/06/2007--Senate Judiciary Committee votes in favor of 
     sending S. 344 to the full Senate for a vote. The bill would 
     require television coverage of the Supreme Court's open 
     sessions unless a majority of justices vote to block cameras 
     for a particular case.
       1/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral argument 
     in Baze v. Rees (Lethal Injection). Court agreed. Press 
     Release
       1/02/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in Crawford v. Marion County (Voting Rights). 
     Denied.
       1/16/2008--NY Times Editorial on Cameras in the Supreme 
     Court.
       3/2008--Request denied for same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in United States v. Ressam (``Millenium Bomber'' 
     case).
       3/2008--Request granted for same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in District of Columbia v. Heller (DC Gun Law). 
     Press Release
       3/6/2008--The Senate Judiciary Committee passes the 
     ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act'' which allows cameras in 
     federal court rooms with a vote of 10-8 with one member 
     abstaining. The bill is referred to the full senate for 
     consideration. Press Release
       3/21/2008--Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Editorial on 
     allowing cameras in the Supreme Court.
       4/14/08--Request for same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in Kennedy V. Louisiana (Death Penalty for Rape) 
     denied.
       9/26/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in Altria Group, Inc. v. Good (Marketing of 
     ``Light'' Cigarettes) and Winter v. Natural Resources denied. 
     Request Letter
       10/15/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in FCC v. Fox Television Stations (Television 
     Indecency Standards) denied. Request Letter Story
       11/12/2008--Request for audio release of oral argument in 
     Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (Free Speech) denied.
       12/3/2008--Request for audio release of oral argument in 
     Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (Supreme Court-State 
     Court authority) denied.
       12/10/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Can President's Cabinet be 
     sued for constitutional violations by subordinates) denied.
       3/3/2009--Request for audio release of oral argument in 
     Caperton v. A.T. Massey (Should elected state judges recuse 
     themselves) denied.
       3/27/2009--Joint request for same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District 
     Number One v. Holder 4-291 granted. Request Letter Article
       7/2009--Judge Sotomayor questioned about cameras in the 
     court during her confirmation hearings. Sen. Specter on 
     Opinion Poll Sen. Specter on Cameras in the Court Sen. Kohl 
     on Cameras in the Court
       7/2009--British Supreme Court decides to televise events 
     from inside the court's three chambers. Article
       8/7/2009--Boston Herald op-ed by Wayne Woodlief: 
     ``Televised justice would be for all.'' Article
       9/9/2009--Request for Citizens United v. Federal Election 
     Commission (Campaign Finance). Agreed.
       11/2009--Requests for audio releases of oral arguments in 
     Jones v. Harris Associates (Investment fund fees), Graham v. 
     Florida (life sentence for minor), and Sullivan v. Florida 
     (life sentence for minor). Denied.
       2/16/10--Request for request for same-day audio release of 
     oral argument in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project. Denied.
       2/26/10--C-SPAN requests for same-day audio release of oral 
     arguments in Skilling v. United States and McDonald v. City 
     of Chicago on Tuesday, March 2nd--denied.

[[Page 11479]]

       4/7/10--C-SPAN requests same-day audio release of oral 
     argument in Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez on 
     April 19. Denied.
       4/15/10--During hearing of House Appropriations-
     Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Services, 
     Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer comments on cameras in 
     the court. Click here to watch
       4/29/10--C-SPAN statement on today's Senate Judiciary 
     Committee passage of two bills concerning TV cameras in the 
     Supreme Court. Press Release
       5/10/10--Pres. Obama nominates U.S. Solicitor General Elena 
     Kagan. She gave remarks on cameras in the court during a 
     Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference from July, 23, 2009. Click 
     here to watch

                          ____________________