>> i will say to my colleague, a great lawyer and excellent senator, i think, i would respectfully talk about the ideas that he suggests. he spoke about brown vs. board of education, where the supreme court said that separate was not equal, and some say this is a justification -- justification for a judge setting policy. i would see this differently, i would see this as the supreme court saying that the constitution of the united states guarantees every american equal protection of the law, and they found that in segregated schools, some people were told that they must go to school because of their race.

there were several constitutional issues there, i do not think that was an activist policy-making decision. i think the supreme court correctly concluded that these schools, in which a person was mandated to go to one or the other based upon their race, violated the equal protection clause of the united states, and they also found that this was not equal. and with regard to the ledbetter case, centered urban -- senator durbin spoke about this. i would say that everyone knows this is a universal rule, that

when a law is inflicted, they have a certain time in which to file their claim. this is the statute of limitations. if you do not file this, you are barred from filing the lawsuit. the u.s. supreme court heard the evidence, that was argued in the supreme court, she took her case all the way to the supreme court, they concluded that she was aware of the unfair wage practices, long before the statute of limitations -- and by the time she filed the complaint, this was too late and one witness was dead. so years after, they concluded that. the congress, was unhappy about

this, passed a law that i think models the statute of limitations on these kinds of cases dramatically, but it would give her a chance to be successful or another person to be successful. this was not a conservative activist decision, this was an analysis by the supreme court, they concluded that she was waiting too long to bring the lawsuit. congress, thinking that was not good, passed a law to change the statute of limitations so more people could prevail. this is not wrong for the court to strike down that law, we just had something to do with the attorney general, holder, or

the office of legal counsel wrote an opinion that he kept down, declaring that the legislation that we passed to give the district of columbia the united states congressman, was unconstitutional. he did not want that out, because they supported a congressperson from the district of columbia. i believe that this will come back. i do not think that was constitutional or if that is activism, this is just a reading of the constitution. and if congress passes a law in violation, this should be struck down. if the court is doing this in an objective way, not allowing their personal emotions, so i

think that we will have a great discussion, about the supreme court and the federal court, and i look forward to this. i appreciate sen. durbin. if i was