there can be those people but for those who want it and need it clearly we can have a system that can do that and by the way that's what we propose. >> let me ask you on the tax side. reagan cut taxes and has a big job growth. they raise taxes. over eight years. george w. bush cut taxes. president obama is now past 11 million jobs after raising taxes. what is it in that record. to accelerate job creation and growth. >> he raised taxes and has ten times amount. we are averaging one to 2% growth.

probably a recession around the corner. this economy is so global and interconnected america was out there in the lead and could dominate. that is not the case anymore. overseas where i come from the canadian they tax my 15%. china is at 25. the success with small businesses their top tax rate is 46.6 percent. if we keep taxing businesses and some entire tax rates we will lose in global competition. companies are going overseas because of taxes. i won't name the country.

who became a foreign company so that they could take their overseas money and reinvest back in this country. this is crazy. in the 21st century you can just think you can tax contacts in tax and there will be no international consequences. it pays to take a difference. so that it makes sense to have your headquarters in america. another area of focus. you spent a lot of time going into communities. you've said that they face hurdles in those places. what have you learned about the way that they are perceived show up, show up. listen, listen. you two ears. and then we need to do this

better. what i have learned is that there is incredibly things don't try to displace them and tell them i'm here to tell you what to do help them support them. give them oxygen and space. it is a thing we created. is a thing that they know. it has 14 gangs. this is not a safe place for your kid to go to school. we created this mentor program. they came in and became mentors. 247 and they helped get these kids on the right path. they have credibility graduation rates were up. we are bringing this idea. it's going on in dallas all around the country.

they are not working together right now in the same direction we need to do that so that they're all kind of pushing and pulling and going after root causes of poverty. disruption into this poverty the status quo that has failed us. the criticism you here though is the padgett priorities don't always match up with your language and predicate. 62 percent of the cuts in ten years does that undermine your claim. >> i think that the sea there at the center. we dispute their assessment.

this is not a budget -- budget-cutting exercises from welfare to work. there will be budget savings at the end of the day because of that. we have a poverty track. it pays not to work. if you're single mom and you get about 24 grand in benefits. or you're in a job you will lose it. you will lose your child care benefits. what were proposing is to change all of that. and customize welfare benefits to particular needs with important incentives. the school get training. get the soft skills and the hard skills. from where they are to where they need to be than there

will be plenty of savings at the end of the day. and there will be savings. that's the way we see it. and someone i covered and admired. as a republican's were driving towards the first majority in 20 years. he said to me one day on this trip we can't be just the party of little government and big presence. do you feel like he's right. i'm one of the people that are pushing for criminal justice reform. both parties we overcompensated. now that we learned that there are better methods of incarceration. those are the things that many of us are looking for.

we are still on track. we are still working on it. the polls have shown this year and the republican primaries that virtually every state except for alabama every other state with a exit poll the majority of the voters supported some kind of legal status for undocumented immigrants here in the u.s. i would get some legal status? >> i've written very extensively about this. i think there is a way may have to start with security. the problem some new people have there is no fate faith or confidence that we will actually secure our border. that will actually had

interior security and the feeling as we will do something on the legal side but we won't secure our border and it will be in the same problem ten years down the road. those always collapse under their own weight. i think you stage reforms and they must begin with the confidence building exercise that is critical for national security. in the day and age and they're trying to penetrate the southern border you have to deal with this. and when you deal with it and if we deal with it in a way that gives people the sense that we are actually securing our country than i think attitudes will change across the country people are then willing to embrace fixing the broken immigration system. it is clear the system is broken but not some big bill

that collapses under its own weight. donald trump who today is not and neck in the polls he might be elected president. he said he intends to read negotiate the deals of nafta to get a better deal. he would withdraw from nafta would you help him as speaker of the house try to achieve that? >> in six weeks and he could be president. if he is president and wants to withdraw from nafta will you help him achieve it. for small it was 1993 or four when this was done. there are things that we can do to upgrade and improve. clearly there is room for growth and improvement i think we should have a north american energy block that could just dominate the world. let's work on improving and

not talk about with the drawing and by the way as you know i wrote the trade promotion for a lock so we can blanket trade 95 percent of the world's consumers live in the countries. so we have to trade. it could affect of trade agreements. we are in the midst of letting the roles of the global economy. they will be written by some country not us. >> from the start one of the most consistent causes has been in reform. the better way reaffirm the goal of converting medicare into a premium support structure. your nominee has said repeatedly we are not connect cut your social security and were not putting your medicare regardless of who is elected in 2016 will you continue to push for that. it doesn't cut medicare. you know that you need medicare is on its way to

insolvency. the government right now is making promises to people that he knows it cannot keep. what were proposing is a system that tells us is the most effective way to save money and solvency for the program for beneficiaries and taxpayers in our programs don't apply to current seniors. they apply to our generation if you are in and near retirement nothing changes. we can keep the problem at the soon and then get around to it after they are well into retirement after they have retired in order to stave off a debt crisis this is what we're trying to avoid happening. we think it will make it better. give people more choices. they are called for spending 200 $75 billion on

infrastructures earlier this year her numbers our fraction of what we're talking about would you pass a 550 billion-dollar infrastructure program. just so you know we can pass that. leslie we passed the water resorts bill. the custom laws we pass. were getting things done. the real deal here on the is get the taxes. to figure a different way.

one other area. it is our speech we should have a future test for the amount of legal immigrants we lent the country and that should be limited so that the share of the total population that is born abroad only stays at historical average. it's now 14%. he wants to limit future immigration by a test of how much of the country is there. is that something you would do. >> limiting immigration so we maintain a certain population balance. what i've always believed is you need to retool the legal system so that if it's the economy's needs. keep families intact transition our legal system so that these are given to what our need for the economy. do we have a shortage of dairy workers yes we do. to have a shortage of

high-tech in silicon valley they are retiring we need medical professionals. nurses and doctors. so even if we succeed in item number one here and get every able-bodied person out of welfare to work 94 million people who are in the work force that do not have jobs. we will still have population needs because of demographics in this country. a 90% increase the skill set that is needed in our economy that is not been filled by americans. as you have listened this year had you heard anything that you can work with hillary clinton on. if she is elected president. >> we will work with whoever

wins. obviously i think with the government we can get so much more done. i'm tired of divided government it doesn't work very well. we've gotten some good things done but the big things poverty, the debt crisis the economy healthcare, these things are stuck in divided government and that's why we think the unified republican government was the way to go. >> the association of the u.s. army is holding the nl annual meeting. i just got underway. q&a started. >> whether the u.s. has lost the ability to deter and then i have a follow-up question. >> of course it's not the u.s. army by itself that deters. with the other u.s. capabilities in allies deterrence is a whole like a

holistic approach that number one. and certainly we are working hard to reestablish what we think is the necessary participant. >> the level of capability to ensure deterrence. that is the bringing back of the armor and equipment exercises the speed of the assembly and all of these are aspects of deterrence. we haven't lost it but we are having to rebuild some of that and make it more relevant. >> can you talk about how russia has been affected with this. and then you could talk about how congress needs to provide funding and when do they need to do this. how is russia harassing the

u.s. and other forces. russia's invasion of ukraine and what they have done since 2008 with their invasion of georgia. they saw 10,000 soldiers which is contrary to what they said they would do. with the signing of the six-point agreement. to end the fighting in georgia. the fighting is there. these are all things that undermine any attempt for stability and security in europe. the fact that all 28 nations agreed at that summit it was

unacceptable. and then was affirmed again at the nato summit in warsaw with the alliance recognized we need to transition from assurance to deterrence that is a part of it. it is the behavior behavior the use of using nuclear weapons threatening romania and other countries has nuclear targets what i would describe as frequent a professional use of aircraft and violating the airspace. i think that the best way to avoid escalation is with transparency when any of us here are doing exercises we are always we have everybody congressional delegations watching our exercises of course we are surprised every

single time and they happen on the border of our allies. they don't have the same degree of transparency that i think would help lower the anxiety. i will try not to cause massive feedback. you mentioned rebuilding buildings for rapid movement of forces and you mentioned in your panel also a lot of surprisingly small things that turn out to be the nozzle for the fuel hose or the number of heavy equipment transporters as you view it in your nations what are some of the basic simple things that we forgotten or divested that are not in solvable but need to be solved before we can actually

do this as a practical matter effectively. >> i would like to ask the general to jump on that. because a germy army has an for us all of the things you're right. they are solvable. none of it's free. but it's definitely solvable and at their reenergizing of a sophisticated robust exercise process on schedule is what is helping us address this. everybody here has been involved in everything we were doing was focused on getting the units ready to go. now for deterrence you need some capabilities that we used to do a lot of but also this is not all just doing also

begin we are looking at electronic warfare capability. and in syria and other places that we've not had to worry about before. or the fact that russia has uavs ever had something that we have not had to worry about before. it is the exercises that give us the opportunity to figure out how to improve this. and how do we deal with those sort of threats. if i could i would defer to my colleagues here. it is a change of mindset which needs to be understood when we were in afghanistan for quite a long time we have to develop our capabilities and how to encounter the taliban and build up the security forces so a lot of procedures had been developed to do that as effective as possible.

they been written in the united states referring to certainty and had to be put into place. so afghanistan was a challenge for smaller units it was a platoon company to be effective in deterrence again we have to think on the grade level in the is a new mindset with a whole generation of young engineers fit corporals and the tenants who have been perfect in the mind warfare and they have done all of these things. they don't have the same mind for example to be capable of doing that. that is something you need to relearn. yet of the better understanding against what

does it mean to work and fight together. so what we're doing is implementing these groups and that is not only the plane those groups it's tying it into an overall planning and bringing it together with the enhanced native response which was decided to years before. in over six had to be brought together. and that's what were doing at the moment. and the other better groups. they are some kind of catalyst they are the transmission belt to get all of these things together. it's about material. yes we have to rebuild again capabilities which we have

given away this is about bridge layers and counter movement capabilities and it's about ground bast. all of these things had to build both up again. what were doing the europeans the canadians the americans was to find out we know it already has which capability still available to bring this together so that as soon as possible and this means already today we are able to fulfill our mission. we are building up regularly we know what to do in the decisions they give us clear guidance on what we need to do. >> if i may add something from the partner perspective.

in the partner with nato. our situation is a bit different it has meant that we have kept that lesson on defense although we have also concentrated for that. and now this training. we had tried in a way to keep of the skills which are related to the operations and the use of artillery and whatever. and as why it has been good to have the corporation with the europe we are learning from each other. maybe we have kept some capabilities but at the same time i would say that we benefit the credible capabilities this is a situation in all the efforts

for peace. to make a critical response capability. i was at an exercise earlier this year thanks to general torment and his explanation. it was an amazing experience first of all to have an american u.s. army striker company there that moved under the command of a captain and moved by a ferry 2s tanya to participate in this exercise and then came back i think that's the first time we have an armored vehicle. they learned so much a great experience and then they ferried back to join another exercisable while i was there i was able to principate participate right along with the general.

>> with a small arms fire and they have a mix of new and older equipment and i was established in the standard when all of the soldiers that were involved in this attack have been in the army like less than six months. is an amazing system and in the mobilization process he could into your questions. as an outsider when i saw the fidelity and the soldiers who have been in the army i think they had been in ten months. maybe they were a little bit older. i was astounded. when i took away from this was that the nations that had

share a border with russia or any threat where they might have to respond very quickly and particularly if they don't have gigantic populations are a lot or a lot of strategic depth they have to have a conscript or mobilization system that would allow them to also contribute to the deterrence. georgia is looking at the finish model. has blessed other countries that had to do that. they're all in the region. they have a similar type process. this is not something that we are having to relearn its country that has existed there for a long time. something that we did learned that we all became very comfortable and expected to work alongside state department. if i do not had that

experience i don't think i would've automatically reached out. it is a comprehensive effort. all of the aspects of power as well. if we could do just one question. he will take the microphone please. i wanted to ask about the brigade that you plan to rotate. how one point to start the rotation. can you talk a little bit about what looks like a delay here. and how that may be impacting.

and maybe expand a little bit on to why this has not occurred yet. is it something else it was never intended for october there was always going to be a time where we transitioned from the model. use it and put it away and move back. we are at the transition of that now. we kept the tanks and the vehicles they are still in those countries. until the next heavy brigade shows up. but that was mainly for insurance purposes. we took them through this transition they know knew that we were still committed there.

the third brigade will arrive on the 15th of january. when does it actually arrive. and then they will immediately go into their deployment that i described earlier on the clock to find out how long does it take us to really do that to unload, move it won't be how fast we can get them off the ship but it will be the rail capacity available to move out of the single port. and the next time we do that we will look at using multiple ports. no lapse. but to your point this has been the problem for every service chief. every year. if you don't have budget certainty it makes it very difficult for people to plan and participate especially how

to sip had discipline that money. yes. absolutely. the impact and how that is affecting your planning. in iraq and syria if you could talk a little bit about that.

we don't get to choose which threats are out there and i think that goes to the point that all of the service chiefs have made in this secretary of planning made this morning that to do everything but the services being asked to do, you have to have the capability to do it otherwise you do have to do them in sequence as you can get to them. there's not enough capability to fully seal the deal, to achieve the desired outcome decisively in all of them at the same time.

we are having to find a variety of ways to deal with each threat as we can. that's why our portion of it, 30,000. that's less than a third of the stadium here. that's a many soldiers we have in europe. probably about 30,000. i defer to you all. >> okay, of course we have a great interest in how they do the military operation. what is the difference between ukraine and syria. in ukraine we have seen the use of russian assets. in syria we have seen the use of russian forces, especially the air force. at least for us, it has been a bit surprised that they were able to keep in the air force.

many flights. day and what type of weapons. i would say from our point of view, it's been a disaster on the civil population. from a military point of view, they have been quite effective for rather a long period. >> we all have to understand and i think we understood that if we commit forces as part of an overall approach, we have to stand where eddie that this can take a long time in bosnia we intervened in 1996 and in and in kosovo in 1999. we still are in cozumel. in afghanistan 2001.

we need to have this understanding that we need to have patience. you have to stay committed and from the perspective of the german army, we stay committed in afghanistan and we stay committed in the nine providences and we provide training and advice and assist. we stay committed in cozumel and committed to the training to enable them to defend against the regime. we continue in molly because we think it is important to do something that helps to downgrade the flood of refugees coming from the southern part of africa. we can continue with two missions in mali.

we also provide troops together and we do that in the northern part in mali. we stay committed and from our perspective it is important to do that. you have to have this understanding and also to tell the soldiers, we have to contribute what we can contribute and at the same time we have to do all we can do and what we have to do to provide our input in eastern europe. once the western part as well as the eastern part which is it is important. you can't drop one part and then focus on the other one. the few years later the problem comes back to. you have to have patience from time to time. >> i know we have time for one more question.

>> thank you. general hodges, you mentioned during the panel, you discussed active armor. it appears, based on the armor development that they are preparing for a large scale warfare in europe heavily relying on armor. it also appears that the u.s. is not really pushed our capabilities. am i reading this correctly? if im, am, how do you see this playing out in a potential conflict? >> the u.s. is not just working on armor development. there are a lot of aspects to it. we still have an exceptional armored, the latest version of it just like the latest version of the british challenger tanks. the quality is there. the point about the reactive

armor, from what we are seeing in ukraine, the battlefield there, how everybody there is using reactive armor and you're starting to see some reactive system, if for serious we should bring everything we have. not just the thing but everything that's a normal part of that process. we have to put the brackets on there so you can put the tiles on there and that's all part of it. we haven't use that very much since the war on iraq. this is a skill set we are having to relearn from on how to do. it's not a matter of we are lagging behind, we just haven't needed reactive armor from armored vehicles like we see being used in the ukraine.

that's what that's about. >> interestingly, they got a big rollout of the armada, the one that failed, what they have done is the latest version of the t72 tank, the outstanding tank so russia has, for a variety of reasons has had to cut back on some of the investments that they plan to make. they are continuing to del valle up and build on that model. they will have plenty of armored capability. the question is, how would they employ, if they were going to. that's something i'm very interested in. what is something there able to

do how long they're able to do. it's it's not just a matter of having to think. the matter of money of training and having cruise to maintain it when we take the combined capabilities of the alliance and put together, it dwarfs whatever they could muster. that's why the alliance is so important for us. >> we can take one last question >> they asked us to become better in intel. today we are favoring russia's buildup. they always speak the same language, they use the same doctrine, they use the same radio and they use the same equipment. we were very good in afghanistan

and iraq as well and we have to get all of these capabilities back. if i can maintain them in my unit, that's how i have to refuel, i can do it in the striker unit. these things, this is operability and it's a technical question and also about doctrine and that's what we are working so hard and we have many, many exercises that we are doing that are helping us come forward. we are really coming forward. >> ladies and gentlemen, i know everyone had a few more questions but we have to close the press conference because we have another appointment that we have to get the gentleman too. thank you for your time.

thank you for coming and everyone have a great day. if you do have some follow-ups, please get in touch with myself or someone from my office. thank you. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] >> ming up in about an hour, over on c-span, hillary clinton hits the campaign trail in the swing state of ohio. they are meeting with voters in akron. it holds 18 electoral college votes. you can watch her remarks live in about an hour over on c-span. more of c-span's campaign 201616 coverage with an indiana governor's debate between democrat john greg, and libertarian rick spell. it's the second of their three debate. mike pence is campaigning for vice president. the debate starts live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> ahead of tuesday's vice presidential debate, we will take a look back at the candidates. tim kaine and indiana governor

mike pence using the c-span video library. >> i have seen this story before. i have turned on the television and seen the bad news of a shooting or whether emergency or a famine. i have seen these stories and there will be more stories but there was something in the story yesterday that was different. it was you. your spirit even in a dark day, of optimism and community and hope. >> the presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the american government. more often for good or not it sets the tone for the branches. it sets the expectations of the people. its powers are vast and consequential. its requirements from the outset and by definition impossible for martyrs to for fill. it must have humility and

purpose as set forth by the constitution of the united states. >> a look at jim gagne and mike pence ahead of the debate tonight on 80 strength on c-span. watch any time on c-span.org and listen at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span radio app. >> the notion that a car can drive itself is no longer science-fiction. it's only a question of when, not if. >> on the communicators we are looking at self driving cars. tonight we will talk with mark rose kind, head of the national highway traffic ministration. david shepherdson, a reporter with thomson reuters joins the conversation. >> the question, not even a year ago, six months, when are they going to arrive? . they are here. they are on the road. all of us need to focus on how we make sure they are as safe as possible because they offer us tremendous life-saving potential. >> watch the communicators tonight at eight eastern on c-span2.

c-span washington journal, live every every day with news and policy issues that impact you and coming up tuesday morning, we are live from longwood university in farmville, virginia. the site of the vice presidential debate. munication study assistant professor at longwood university and joshua, media theory and politics assistant purse professor from purdue will discuss the importance and history of these live debates. also their effect on election outcomes and what to expect between to mccain and mike pence also kelly parker, editor editor and chief for the rotunda. j holderman, a science and engineering professor from the university of michigan will talk about voting machines security and vulnerability. be sure to watch c-span "washington journal" live at 70 string tuesday morning. join the discussion.

>> the supreme court's new term began today. last week supreme court scholars outline the cases to watch in the upcoming year including key first amendment and commercial cases. this is held by the specific legal foundation and the national review. [inaudible conversation] >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of the foundation d.c. center. on behalf of the foundation and national review institute, we welcome you to today's third annual supreme court review program. i would be ungracious if i didn't also think jones day for this wonderful room and the wonderful accommodations. we would also like to welcome

those millions of c-span viewers that i mentioned earlier who are watching at odd hours of the night and day worldwide. national review is supplying our moderator who i will supply in just a moment. as for specific legal foundation, we just one hour ninth victory in a row in the supreme court. that victory in the hocks case was unanimous against the united states government. as was our last victory against the united states. as you can see, as much as we missed justice scalia last term, vacancy doesn't always affect the outcome. that said, we also know that a vacancy sometimes can affect the outcome. outers english panelists will address how they think the vacancy on the supreme court might affect the supreme court case selection and their ruling

this year. because the legal foundation has at least one more case that will be argued this coming term and we have several pending petitions for review, we will be listening to their observations intently as well. before that, they are going to discuss some of the most consequential cases that are already on the supreme court's docket including four that neil will argue himself and several that were added to the docket just yesterday. they may also address some other cases on the supreme court's horizon. after they have a few rounds amongst themselves, i will come back up to this podium to recognize questions from the audience. our moderator today is well known to this audience and c-span viewers. he is the senior editor at national review. aa columnist and a visiting fellow at the american

enterprise institute. he is also a frequent commentator on tv and his articles appear in the nations leading newspapers and magazines he is not a lawyer. he does not normally play one on tv, but he is very well respected for his writings on the intersection of judicial decisions, public policy and culture. i think he is the ideal person to lead the discussion. with that, take it away. >> thank you todd. i think that is the kind of introduction of which lyndon johnson once said that my father would have enjoyed it my mother would've believed it. let me join todd and welcoming all of you on behalf of the pacific legal foundation and national review institute and also join him in thinking them part for providing this terrific venue for our discussion. i think will have a great panel. we have another exciting year

ahead of us of finding out what our loss turns out to be or to put it the way donald trump would put it, finding out what bills the justices are going to sign. i'm just quoting the man. we are going to first hear from ketelsen who is famous for the otherwise, but i have to say something otherwise i wouldn't have anything to do, they are a partner in the washington d.c. office, a longtime member of the firm's executive committee and founder of the crisis management sports law and appellate and constitutional law practice groups. he has been a lawyer with the firm since 1965 with two brakes

to serve as assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel in the department of justice from 1981 until 1984 and the 84 and the solicitor general from 2001 - 2004. he is argued 62 cases before the supreme court. he is a member of the ronald ragan foundation and the board of visitors of the federal society. he is a member of the presence commission on white house fellowship in the council of the administrative council of the united states. we are only halfway done, by the way. he previously served as a member of the president's privacy and oversight board. in 2010 he was selected by "time" magazine as one of 100 most influential people in the world. i would like to get an update on where you are ranking right now. he has twice received the department of justices edmund j randolph award, the highest award to civilian spread he was also word that the burden of defense metal which was that department's highest civilian award and the american bar metal, that organizations

highest award. and now, please talk to us about the cases you are watching. >> can i talk talk about the time magazine thing, when they sent me the letter around one april, of april, i thought somebody played an elaborate trick on me with one of the 100 most influential people and then i saw saw the list. it was lady gaga, anyway. we have a very limited amount of time and it is going to be very interesting supreme court term, notwithstanding the fact that the court has taken fewer cases at this time this year than it has in the past. this trend has been down at the supreme court. they are taking fewer and fewer cases over the years. the cases that they have taken i think we will all agree are turning out to be very interesting, especially to neil who is arguing them. whatever the number of cases.

what i will do and i think will each do this, i will spend a minute minute or two mentioning some of the cases that will be on the court's docket. just to give you an idea of what they are. i will try to explain the details were the arguments in any detail at all because they are simply not enough time to do that. the first, i would mention, there are two redistricting cases. the names of those is a case in virginia and one that comes out of north carolina. those are, the court almost has a regular diet of voting right cases and they all stem from the constitution and the voting rights act and the effort by members of the state legislatures, it's always political, they want to provide advantage to one party or the other, whoever's in charge but there also constrained by the constitutional voting rights to accomplish certain objectives as

far as providing racial minorities or ethnic minorities opportunities to elect the candidate of their choice. race always involves political affiliation these days. the redistricting for state legislatures and congressional almost involve a tranquil political objective and at times people have attempted to pack racial minorities into particular districts in order to provide an opportunity for racial minority to elect a candidate of their choice and the republicans found out some time ago, if you you pack a lot of african-americans in a particular district, you increase the district of republicans in the non- packed district, the non- majority district.

in this intersection of politics , normal rules about redistricting and whether to accomplish or not, political objections to racial balance and things of that nature are involved in these cases. these cases, the the jurisprudence have become very complicated and it has become, to a certain degree, degree, i know it when i see it kind of thing. if you see these weird districts and they are accomplishing something that looks suspicious, it usually is. those are the two cases in the redistricting category. the next one that i was going to mention is the first amendment. this is a commercial speech case. the supreme court is deciding on a regular basis, cases involving the right to speak or in particularly, the commercial

speech context. this one is called expressive hair design. it has nothing to do with hair design. it has to do with the swipe fee that goes when you use a credit card to make a retail transaction and some retailers will give you a discount if you pay for cash because they are paying a fee every time you use a credit card. some states have prohibited surcharges if you use a credit card but permit discounts if you use cash. now that make sense to people, apparently on those ten states and the people that are challenging this are retailers are saying that a discount for cash and a surcharge for credit card is the same thing. they're just opposite sides of the same coin. if you're prohibiting one without the other, you're really prohibiting our speech content

and how are marketing and the charge that were permitted to make. if we make it as a discount we can do it if we make it as a surcharge we can. that's restricting our commercial speech. it's going to be interesting to see what standard the court applies to this and how the court comes out. they took it for a reason. it's going to be, in my judgment, fairly interesting. the third, separation of powers. the supreme court, once or twice a year, usually year, usually has a separation of powers case. we struck down the appointment power depending on how you viewed the facts in that particular case. in that case different rationale to the court and their ability

to exercise when the senate is or isn't in a resource. whether it's a short or longer recess. all of this involves the struggle between the president and it doesn't matter which party the president is. it happens if it's a democrat or republican president and the senate. : >> >> when there is a vacancy but congress has restricted that because this senate in particular does not want the

president to use the vacancy act to put someone in office then nominate as the president hopes to have them on a permanent basis than the senate cannot do anything that the person stays in the position as a temporary officer for as long as possible so i will not get into details because of all of the sections and we don't have time for that. it is fun to watch with an intersection of the clash of powers with president and congress with respect to putting people in office as one of the functions of the executive to approve thousands of people in various offices in the executive branch. the next one i will mention

is insider-trading. that is a very big deal for certain parts of the country and year-and-a-half case said you cannot prosecute an action under the securities act for someone that is an gauged with inside trading or has received a tip pen from the insider of must there is actual compensation to the person who is the insider who has inside information for somebody else to trade on. but there has been a law of attention that the united states government feels very strongly we don't have to prove that because there is lots of reasons why someone is violating the fiduciary duties to take it inside information. hoping somebody else to make money so this time comes out

of the ninth circuit and it is a complicated family relationship. the insider was one person giving inside information about the company's performance to his brother and then his brother gave that information comments and they were trading on this secretly and he gave it to his family members fiancee and there was a law of trading. and they agreed with the sec that the family relationship is sufficient to show there is improper use of insider information you don't have to prove with the objective with the measurable compensation. you can show that through the family relationship. the supreme court to

rejected the second circuit case petition but they took the ninth circuit over the government's objection. they wanted the ninth circuit to stay in place when it was inevitable the supreme court would get into this if there are different rules in different circuits. people in wall street are watching this case very carefully and for those that have the resources to do that. finally with sanctions, can courts award extinctions as you see often in decades of discovery requirements. when those sanctions were violating those court rules because that could be

involved with civil sanctions. key and the amount of monetary sanctions that is imposed have some relationship with the amount of damage that is done or the harm that it has caused by the misconduct? in this case the argument was the penalty was out of scale with the failure to comply with discovery requirements and if there will be a penalty imposed in addition to the level of compensation warranted, then there are due process requirements to be invoked and you have to go through procedures that is why make it into punishment purses compensation there are larger requirements but i do think this case is very important ally of the other context so watch it. >> that was admirably

brilliant. >> mr. katyal is a partner larry he won the five cases the firm has before the supreme court this term so far. he will argue for them former acting solicitor general to the states them professional and dutch professor at georgetown and also won the highest honor the department of justice can give a civilian. >> it is great to be here with you. i will talk about these cases so taken with a grain of salt but in particular we will talk about the commercial cases. the primary interest been of their litigating positions. but the first set are the case is argued in december.

you may remember travelling in the '70s he had to carry traveler's checks because that was the way to get money in another city to have an easy way to get access to cash but then there was the atm but it was only at a bank the then you put in the card you would get dollars out but that was not convenient enough so chase and the other banks offering access in other cities and that worked okay but what about those that did not have a chase account? in the 1980's you have regional atm networks that developed. and allowed access to money that was not necessarily from your bank said was an internal bank system.

the notes medley in the 1990's congress liberalized the rules to allow anyone to operate the independent atm operator you did not have to be affiliated with the bank if you go to 7-eleven uc these atm machines and they don't have any affiliation. but if you have the atm card you will say you can see these logos on the back. these are networks that national in scope fellow issued to cash transactions were through the network. through the atm independent operators it was almost all the networks they were a

little worried when our customers come and use the independent atm machine we are charged allied and we want to make sure they're not. off so they have liked the most favored nations idea that we want access to the peace of mastercard network in you have to charge the lowest price that you are offering people of other networks that was the way to protect their brand to increase the size well visa and master card at the time were on corporate boards so you had people like wells fargo and bank of america and who were serving on the corporate board. the independent operators

said would you were trying to is conspired to raise the price of atm access fees through the most favored nations clause ideas. so under section one of the sherman act so what you can imagine they say now we try to expand the size of our network there is no allegation at all that they are conspiring with one another with independent action taken by visa/mastercard to protect the network. bomb so what is the standard one house to alleged with conspiracy with joint participation greg said is a huge deal to the commercial sector because as the d.c. circuit said if you are in individual and combine

through outside organization with a joint venture or association of corporate affiliation or chamber of commerce then they take action that alleges to be a conspiracy but that bill is enough room so really we take those businesses from the organizations or associations in the first place. , so they make the decision with the supreme court with the eight member court to say we will take another look. most of the big corporate groups say to the court, we do joint ventures all the time with all sorts of associations you should really change how we do business just by a joining these organizations with the

conspiracy action. man and association of association. white and that they would be stymied otherwise. we'll spark an bank of america against city of miami it is against the housing finance mortgages and things like that. but any person who claims to have been injured by discriminatory housing practice believes this person will be injured it is about to occur. it also has a separate permission that allows the

justice department and had to also bring suits. but this involves the question of the case can a city be a person for purposes of the fair housing act? the city of miami with many others have brought cities against the nation's leading banks with the theory that the city is sued for racial discrimination. but you were alleged to have sub-prime lending to people who could not pay mortgages. then they were foreclosed. then that reduced property value when that was reduced that means the tax base reduced their for the city was harmed of the discriminatory action that you undertook.

and most predictably they say that it isn't about tax revenue or anything like that. it really cannot be about discrimination because of the bank's in gauge jan risky lending comment did you would have more foreclosures, more property tax declines which would further hurt the city. is in about discrimination it is a business practice. the banks also say this is so long chain of causation of several stepper theory. what makes the case interesting is five years ago the supreme court with title seven has is language and what the supreme court unanimously said was% is not only the victim of discrimination because it

also be the spouse that suffers but ironclad limits it cannot extend to the alter boundaries of the constitution. the supreme court said that unanimously five years ago but the problem was they said there are three cases decided 30 years ago from the fair housing act that the person agreed to be our boundaries. so the court said it was ill considered. but under appeal the court has said that about the fair housing act, but they have not overrule the earlier decisions. so the lower court judges are bound to apply that law. so the question is basically can the court to connect the dots to say you already said this about title xii now about the fair housing act.

and now the of president to say it -- stay strong but it takes congress to overrule the year earlier u.s. supreme court even if 30 years. big cases with big banks and communities. the last case that the first one will be on halloween regarding idea. so the individuals disabilities education act with millions of children are now under the auspices of i.d.e.a. that the process to ensure that students who have disabilities will have an education and the centerpiece is the ibp that is designed working with the parents and school administration to make sure

the disabled student has access to what they need through their i.e.p.. of the parents disagree then that is the level love benefits but for the first case is small with relatively. i did not even know a golden doodling existed until five years ago now they are everywhere but it is not permitted to go to the school after the long i.e.p. process so they did sue under the i.d.e.a. the american of disabilities act so the question is to the parents need to first sue under to 20 before they come under the other provision? the second case is a much bigger case that the court

has left on the side over the last 30 years in is how much educational benefit to have to give a disabled student? is there a minimal threshold the court 30 years ago said there wasn't now there is a debate saying how much of an educational process there should be now with a constitutional scholars because i.d.e.a. has legislation. one of the big arguments of the case is could they be subject to open ending funding restrictions? >> learning there is an association of investigation has the set up. so our last panelists is a litigation partner where we

are to specialize in appellate and civil litigation with the constitutional challenge of the affordable care act. during the bush should illustration serving in senior positions with the department of justice with the assistant attorney general and acting attorney-general. clerking for clarence thomas at the supreme court. >> thanks for coming. ally of the major cases touch one way or another in race. ted enchant the redistricting cases one is rodriquez vs. colorado with racial bias in and jury deliberations. there is a rule called the dote impeachment rule that says jurors cannot testify

jury deliberations in order to impeach the of verdict. so that rule in is codified in the rules of evidence of most states. this case involves the sixth amendment challenge to that rule as applied with the defendant seeks to put in is very compelling to racial discrimination in the deliberation. but this is as bad as it can be for the government if we set out to make a hypothetical designed to test the limits basically you'd have the facts of this case. the mexican defendant is convicted of sex crimes and after the conviction, to members submit affidavits

detailing how third member of the jury pretty clearly acted on racial bias. the comments are quite striking one said that he is guilty because he is a mexican. to make matters worse the third juror is a former police man who tells the other jurors that base of his experience with law enforcement those mexicans are guilty. the defendant as a straightforward argument that the amendment guarantees a right to a fair trial that is impaired when the jurors sat on the explicit bias like that. the lever benefits with the exclusionary rule of evidence it has to give way to the sixth amendment. the government is left to argue in the abstract.

there is precedent of pulling the exclusion of evidence with other kinds of bias and we cannot buy a principal distinction to have a family member interested in the kind of dispute which is the facts of the last case. it will be a tough case for the government. it will come down if a terrible fact of the case will overwhelm the general benefit of the evidence rule . i suspect the rubber will meet the road where the accord to get some looking into the exceptions where the cases are direct. this is probably the most publicized case from the

grants of yesterday with offensive trademarks by the federal government. the act says the u.s. ptl cannot register the disparages persons believe on national symbols in this case it is a music band called slant. a group of asian american singers who want to use that term as an expression of racial pride to take back the stereotype that they want to embrace. the ptl fines the term slant is disparaging and refuses to register the market and the federal circuit holes that violates the first amendment. they characterized the provision as discriminatory based on content and viewpoint today characterized key to the

ideological and political component of the market self -- mark itself rather than political speech rather than commercial speech. finally they say is more like government regulation bans simply the government to define the content and simply refusing to confer a government benefit they don't want to subsidize the this is more than the government talking about how to spend its own money for ago the government refusing to extend legal rights against another group of private parties that is regulatory to subsidize.

not surprisingly when the court strikes down the federal statute. this adds interest in the world at large primarily because it is the same question with the redskins trademark case ever denied the trade mark or it was revoked a challenge that in the fourth circuit hiv-2 get their case which was denied however the court comes out on this will almost surely determine whether the redskins will continue to be protected. first amendment. trinity lutheran church is about the limits under the free exercise clause of the government's ability to

discriminate against churches and religious organizations with the provision of secular programs. missouri has a grant program that kiev's money to people in who run the playground to buy a certain kind of safe service and the petitioner is the church farewell qualified against getting -- giving any aid to churches. pdf coming after the supreme court with the free exercise clause with religious

motivated contact but then they say fed requires government neutrality and does not compel or permit the government to discriminate against religious organizations. the key president i think ted was involved in that case as s.g. where the court made the exception of the principles of neutrality to say that the state government was conferring scholarships on a neutral basis to those were the to make an exception to discriminate against students who want to study

because of the religious nature of the students calling and there is something about using government money to fund education of religious leaders that allow a state to say we don't want to do that even the federal establishment clause would allow the state to do that. this is where the bob -- the loss of justice scalia could make a difference. looking of voting patterns you may think this is the kind of case that will be likely to split with justice kennedy to be the deciding vote. with justice scalia gone you have four members of the liberal wing pretty consistently with the establishment clause area that they are not comfortable permitting

government aid to religious organizations for secular items like running a playground if they think the establishment clause might prohibit that, it is hard to see the free exercise clause requires that and it is the best they could hope for. this is that the courts has declined to schedule on the cases they perceive to be closely divided. the last one is a takings case in wisconsin that involves that the government can regulate but not too much in the conceptual question is what is a unit of property against

government regulation? there is a series of regulations to say we don't take a parcel of real property and divided vertically. of the government says you have building you cannot build up on your property the property owner does not get to say look at my age maier -- air rights and that the tyche -- a taking or going down with mineral rights. so this is the horizontal analog so what happens when a property owner has contiguous pieces of real property for? the property owner has to lots next to reach other one is developed the of the one is undeveloped the property owner wants to sell the undeveloped want to use the approach seems to improve

the developed side. the government has a zoning law that says the lots are too small. you cannot sell one or the other you cannot separate them the property owner says this is a takings of the undeveloped law. i cannot do anything useful. the government says you have both you have beneficial use considered as a whole that is enough. bill lower-court says as a matter of taking this that contiguous lots are aggregated together and considered only one parcel but interesting nobody is defending bad and the supreme court. the challenger says a parcel is a parcel i have to treat them as to and to the takings law turns the two

into one and vice versa but wisconsin says the what is the law but we have a state law rule of aggregation when you one - - owned substandard lots next to reach other remake get one instead of to. it is an odd case because these very important issues of takings that are coming up and has a law of disagreement about the state's loss of the will see how that will shake out into anything substantial. >> i believe one of those cases is from the pacific legal foundation. life went to first ask if any cases that you have a comment on that brought up by our federal panelist for quick.

>> i would say something of the insider-trading case that had mentioned it is important but it is important because i have a case u.s. verses newman in the second circuit and once the supreme court denied certiorari and left them standing in nullified allied the people or insider trading prosecutions in your. but to broaden this out to crumble law more generally, what will that look-alike? counterintuitive as justice scalia was seen as a strong believer with case after case to insist on a clear language and then there was

a huge mcdonald's case but with at reasoning so with close-up at that time went what will that do to the debate in that case were there is no clear statutes quick. >> that is an important point with these other cases the court took yesterday that involves the of question. if someone committed to enact of violence. but the court is interested and macdonald case is one of them that the founder the only thing i learned about

that was the plural in. but that was the case ever prosecuted for destroying evidence and they destroyed the fish that was captured. i think the court is very concerned crossing the lines of where justice scalia where he would have been with prosecutorial discretion with respect as that comes into insider trading concept. there is no statute. it is all regulatory stuff to prevent fraud so to what extent can they prosecute civil or criminal especially with penalties on of basis

on the occasion they are using that it gives prosecutors enormous power to allow them to settle or plead guilty because they know what it is they could have done wrong. >> i think it is fair to say that the vacancy and the republican stance on the nomination is less of an issue than people expected. but i wonder what you think and general how the court will approach these cases who or with decisions to take or not take? >> and has had an effect

when justice scalia was alive when they anticipated the ninth member of that immigration plan of president obama that could not have an opinion one way or the other like the union dues case as well. so whether they granted certiorari but no there are others now with the third in the most dangerous is obvious grants before with the pacific legal foundation was a big class-action case where justice scalia wrote

the opinion and another with comcast and after those decisions were split in many ways but the supreme court denied certiorari so i have to think that justice scalia not on the court had a law to do with that. >> the other one is the challenge to the bombing care employer mandate that have religiously based objections as part of the insurance package. date stuck issues in the lower-court this almost certainly would be five / 41 way or the other but they come up with a strange

disposition on their own pace suggested a possible way to resolve the case to have a moral argument then to talk to the lower course if they would settle the case proposed by the court is this just inconceivable with the nine member court. >> it takes four votes there were only nine justices to begin with now you have eight. it is one mass -- one less vote to count on was certiorari i spoke to a justice whether or not that was inhibiting voting for that if they thought they would lose if it was granted i didn't get an answer of course, i did not expect to get one guy was looking into the eyes to see what i could discern laugh laugh but i

think it is clear that there are cases not been granted because the justices involved that might otherwise grant the case say that if we do we could lose. >> corollary is they are concerned about the shrinking docket. that also means to dispute to fill all the doc it. >> does anybody want to see how that could play out with the election? >> i could speculate there is paul latta of talk with the lame duck session after the election bid is president clinton in november will she withdraw

or urge the of withdrawal of the confirmation of the 63 year-old so she can appoint someone in their 40's or 50's instead of judge garland? if it is donald trump what will happen with that? nobody knows if that occurs or not between president obama and the senate leadership bill we could confirm them in the lame-duck as opposed to someone on the left so that could happen every bass says no but it is a good possibility. >> but the president

actually nominated eric garland although widely respected on bull's-eyes arguably the most qualified person ever nominated to the supreme court. so for hillary clinton that is very hard to move away if she wins but if it is donald trump by contrast even at moderate turn the cheek pet is deferential with the nomination of the supreme court will find that hard because if you cannot confirm garland the debate cannot find anybody except a poll that could be damaging for the supreme court because piquancy a vacancy go on for a long period of time. >> if secretary clinton wins i will be shocked if they didn't try to confirm him in

the lame-duck from the republican perspective he is the best nominee that you can hope for with age and centrists some and a well-deserved reputation. >> and the distinguished nominees. >> now be will take your questions. >> please wait for the microphone if you don't wait the viewers cannot hear you. >> what is the plural? >> i have forgotten. [laughter] you don't satraps' -- trucks

-- to 20 bayou do say elephants. >> with the religious case that you mentioned one of the things that you said you cannot discriminate against religiously motivated by some was under the impression there is a difference that's uh court has ruled you can believe anything you want but you cannot act on that belief the fed is this -- detrimental to the first incidence was in the 1820s when the court ruled you can believe what you want the

bad is against the rules of the culture of the country. is that correct? how does that apply wax. >> on the facts of this case it is more of the of religious nature of the grantee. but the free exercise rule the government doesn't have to make exceptions to applied those neutral rules. it is not required to make exceptions for preferential treatment, but it is prohibited from discriminating against someone based on the religious motivation. that is the smith case. everybody remembers the part that says the government

doesn't have to give special treatment but the flip side is it cannot affirmatively discriminate. and that is the exception to the rule where giving money to people. >> when it has struck down in the virginia uncontested where they were giving money to the student groups and they struck that down with the benefit was denied because of the tuition tax cases it should flow into that.

>> >> i am representing reuter urd technological consultants when do those fall into the questions of religious discrimination? is lurking in the background in this case. the amendment generally refers to statutes that sharply prohibit cover made going to religious organizations. misery has in its constitution the blade amendment provision that says no aid to churches as missouri law that is

interpreted to mean that even with the aid is given out under a secular program with secular criteria, they don't get the money because they are a church but because they operate the playground. nonetheless they interpret their own constitution under this provision to say that money cannot be given out so as a secular program they have to affirmatively discriminate against a church or recipient there was a time 30 or 40 years ago when the court was pretty close to the position of the establishment clause requires the same discrimination like when

government gives money to schools accord has moved large the way from that to say that as long as the criteria is neutral not because it is a church runs the playground that is permissible under the establishment clause that you cannot discriminate but if the money goes for speech activities the speech clause reinforces that to say you cannot single out religious people or churches for bad treatment. >> i think the closest thing that we have is this case the members of the working

press i said i would give preference and the first half courage to stand up. >> i guess this would be involved with ted with same-sex marriage now the court has stepped in to transgendered rights and a student out of virginia who to put that lower-court order i hold with at the same time they challenge the government's order in texas about transgendered students and how to treat them in schools how does this play out? to make baird definitely bound for the supreme court without justice scalia a law of that will depend on the circuit court to with the circuit case because a north

carolina is involved with a law of legislation refiled the meat is brief -- and he is a brief on that legislation but it will be by the court or and on one side of the issue if you need to overcome the adverse circuit court decision there will not want to vote for certiorari that at the end of the day to be a 44 split with affirmation of the circuit court decision where the split in the absence does the fact, the dynamic. >> more generally justice scalia had in his sights about the agencies how much the federal court should pump defer to the agency's

views. all of these transgendered views that they have taken a certain view on this issue should baguette difference or not greg c. was starting to have that deference without him on the court it is not clear if that challenge is stymied in the future. >> one of the other effects of the delay that ted carlin has recused himself -- judge garland has recused himself and also will there be more time greg. >> key will continue. he will not right decisions on issues where he has to

turn around and explain his decision. there is no way to win like that but fortunately for the d.c. circuit there are plenty of judges on that court. if this is broadcast i hope none of them are watching but there are personnel that are sufficiently adequate and then they have the senior judges. there is a hearing just yesterday i don't think is hurting the productivity or the vitality of the d.c. circuit because something like another circuit which was a smaller court may have

been more of the effect. >> unlike a couple of other circuits comedy absence does play an important role as an honest broker but that is a loss of the chief judge. >> greg mentioned the trinity lutheran case has not yet the unscheduled. because it was granted on the same day that the legal foundation is bringing and there is a third case with microsoft but also is on schedule. ordinarily we would have made that april argument. we are expected to have the

case heard. now the october calendar is filled. the november calendar has been filled. if looks pretty clear that they're not following the normal rules. how long will the supreme court go? as we wait for the confirmation of an actual justice? can we potentially have the cases heard in the next term >> there is no real downside from the court's perspective as we wait for it to unfold if it is december or january or october it doesn't make a tremendous amount of difference because it will come out by june 30th.

they will hear that disturb him might be at the end of the day away to dispose. >> at least by april we will have a decision can retake that to the bank? >> i am pretty sure they want to postpone arguments but it will be upon the april calendar before that the supreme court cotter break this year because the first monday and october and the first tuesday for religious holidays. they don't have to fill up six days so that helped because i know they were thinking what will we do with the cases? that will be embarrassing.

>> day did schedule a couple of the afternoon arguments in october. >> [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible] dash seen this story before to see the shooting or the weather re-emergence see bright have seen the stories and there will be more but there was something yesterday that was different

. your spirit even there the dart today of optimism spread the presidency is the most visible trend running through the tapestry of american government. . . >> a look at tim kaine and mike pence ahead of the vice presidential debate. >> earlier today, agriculture secretary tom vilsack up veiled

a report that showed that 2016, biobased chemicals contributed $393 billion and 4.2 billion jobs to the u.s. economy. held at the national press club, this is an hour. >> tom vilsack, a pittsburgh nature and former governor of iowa is the only original member of president barack obama's cabinet still serving inned a michigan and has not finance quiet about either food or politics. he ran for the white house and was considered by hillary clinton as a potential running mate by hillary clinton. he campaigned for hillary clinton in iowa. this year, appearing on nbc's "meet the press" he compared donald trump to bernie madoff.