of the offer here at st. john's and the community of kannapolis. it's important for people to understand art because he will understand history and literature into the culture. i think it's important because you can understand history and to itself and where you want to go in the future. a look at the supreme court where this is the first day of the supreme court term. lawrence is here at the table to tell us about this. good morning. let's start with your headline from a recent piece.

this is the first term. they've had some time to adjust the legal position heading towards the court including the cases today, the first term with the obama administration cited with employees and the administration switched the position. tell us more about that case. >> it is about whether the work can be prevented from rippingg together to file claims against an employer through arbitration agreements they have to sign when they become employees. if companies prevent them from making the claims, they make it harder to bring these claims come at least that's what the tc lawyers say. and with the court being the

majority they would be likely to side with the companies in this case and the shrub administration's change in position could help with that. >> and that is just to get started. they usually take about 70 or so cases. they will still be adding some. they haven't taken them all aten but they've taken some pretty big ones they will be hearing over the next month. and the other is number nine. the justice is full-time. what does that mean moving forward in terms of the action? >> this is also the first full term on the court he just had a couple of months back in the spring so there will be a lot of the ten chin on what he is like and how he interacts with his colleagues in the upcomingnt cases. his addition to the court means that now there's a conservativen majority again which we had a year with eight justices.

there was a split between liberals and conservatives but now we've got this conservative majority again. host for the phone numbers are on the screen talking about the opening day of the supreme court especially some of the cases we've already started touching on but we will touch on more in a moment. democrats, seven or 88,000. independent (202)748-8002. they starts today and how long does it last, remind us. >> guest: it goes on until june but they are hearing the arguments until april and then justices get busy writing their opinions. >> speaking of the justice that callejustice thatcalled this tet of momentous what is she sayings here? >> we can all quote on this i think justice ginsburg said it would be a momentous term

talking about these momentous cases including one that is being argued tomorrow by redistricting district that is a huge deal. >> host: tell us what the arguments are. >> guest: lawmakers in the states that travolta districts can do so with the partisan and pretty much as long as they want in order to maximize their ownts parties. this brings up a question of whether that can be a constitutional violation whether the court ever decided that if they did rule that it could have a huge impact on the way that all states rule their district. >> guest: the first call from alabama and independent call. hello. >> caller: good morning. really glad to be on the air.

a lot of people don't seem to follow the reality of what donald trump capris ends. he has his crowd and i think he's actually a populist we could help the average union member in this country. nothing could be further from the truth. he has done a brilliant job of them to be the friend of laboring union people that we see trump with his appointmented of neil gore and the similar corporate labor lawyer type judges to the screen court. he's doing what ronald reagan started back in the 80s was the destruction of public and private unions. tha these were middle income americans could maintain a t

wonderful of being part of the american dream. we will knock it down and see this construction of the american union which a good thing is they've televised the concept of unions.it i would like this man to address the construction of the union in america. wha >> host: >> guest: what's interesting is there are two cases this term but the court has taken that could address the workers rights.se there was a case we talked about already in the ability to bring the claims they took up last week that they are going to be hearing later in the term by the public sector unions and whethen or not they can take the fees from the nonmembers that collect bargaining even if they don't want to be a member of the union. and this is an important part of

the funding and how they influencinfluenced the event.s if the court rules against the unions it would be a major setback. >> host: one of the others is the colorado civil rights position. this is a religious liberty ca case. this is a fascinating case about a christian baker in colorado who was asked to make a wedding cake for a couple band refused to do so based on his religious beliefs and they then complained and the civil rights commission sanctioned the baker for discriminating against the is couple's question is whether they have a free-speech right or the kind of religious overtones that comes down to free speechch which is saying it is a form of

creative expression kind of like writing a song or a poem. he should be able to have a say in what he says and if he doesn't agree with what he's being asked to do than he should to do it.st >> we have the utah senator mike lee who was on the newsmakers program this past weekend and talked a little bit about the case.. here's a look. i feel this is a compelled speech case. the bakery owner was being asked to do something express of twoci engage in expressive conduct. in this circumstance he wasn't unwilling to do business with the same-sex couples. but he didn't want to do is use his expressive talent to make a specialty cake. he would have been happy to sell one off the shelf, but putting his talents to work in a unique

way in this case. i think this case is more properly viewed involving heigthing caught compelled speech. there are-the standards when the government tries to compel someone to engage in speech or express themselves against theit own will. it's about the free speech rig right. the couple say that a ruling in favor of the baker in this case would be what they call a license to discriminate because it would allow people to circumvent antidiscrimination laws. >> host: here's what youro wrote, the case is likely to be hurt by the justices in december and offered the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide with advocacy for the religious right and free speech. tell us more. >> guest: he's the swing vote

co and on the conservative wing he sometimes fight with the liberals in the decision that he wrote so this is where he cuts him right down the middle because on the one hand she does support the rights and a huge part of his legacy when he left the court that he's also a free speech rights and business rateh and has to find a way to rule in so he this case and whatever he decides is probably going to happen because it will beeft costing the fifth of. >> host: davis: from ohio. i what would you like to say or ask about the new term?why >> caller: i would like to bring up one point. why are all of the supreme court justices part of the ivy league?

is at harvard or princeton or aw cornell, whatever. why don't we have a justice that is other than just the ivy league. >> host: what is the breakdownre in terms and why do you think people think that's important? >> guest: the supreme court is probably one of the most elitist institutions in the country if not the most not just for thehe justices but for those that como to the court every year, young recent law school graduates that come from the top law schools and there's been some complaints in the past for the justices themselves because a lot of them come from this same sort of ivory tower background.ory towe some make more of an effort to overcome that by high hearing those from different law

schools, maybe not the ones everyone knows about that when it comes to the nomination of justice, they tend to be from the ivy league schools. they did attend a something called the annual red mass. what is that event, and what is the significance? >> guest: is held every yearan at the catholic religious event held every year and to celebrate the legal profession usually several of the justices attended. i think five of them went yesterday. and i think also the u.s. solicitor general who's remained a lawyer for the trump administration was also there. >> host: justice roberts, thomas, alito, dry air, kennedy, francisco and the notes that we can't about the homily they dealt with about immigration, religious freedom and democracy on other issues.

we were talking with lawrence hurley who was the supreme court correspondent taking the questions and comment on the new term and cases. .. caller: good morning. nothing that supreme court decides with gorsuch from the should even be acknowledged because gorsuch is someone that only the republicans have should even de on the court. the democrats have been put on the sideline. so that's where we should stay. on the sideline, just watching. that's my comment. >> reaction? guest: that's a reference to i believe the appointment of justice gorsuch which was made possible because the republican controlled senate refused to act on the former president barack obama's nominee for that same position which was appeals court judge garland. the republicans held the seat over until the election took place, and then when donald

trump won he was able to appoint kneelgoers ch and the republicans were able to confirm him >> majorit >>. >> now on the democratic line. >> caller: good morning. b it was always my belief that judges should blindly lay right and wrong so how do we end up with the supremes that are republicans or democrats? shouldn't they all be a centrist?.

>> guest: i think with a lot of things in this country that have become politicized it is hard to keep the judiciary of politics and anybody talking about the filibuster talking about the lower courts that the move the democrats made with that divided judiciary. >> we had a list on the screen beginning with redistricting so explain deeper what we will see. >> they took this up a couple years ago justice -- right before justice scalia died.

but then he died and suddenly the court could not decide the case it was four / four which means there was no actual ruling or a precedent set this is the chance to decide this question which actually they need to but if they do decide to overturn the of president to prevent them from to take the fees from nonmembers.t >> the nonmembers can do that already for the collective bargaining m activity to say then the workers who were not unionhe members get a free ride because they're still representing them in the negotiations.

>> host: we spend the first hour talking about guns and the tragedy of las vegas where more than 50 killed and 500 injured so many gun cases?. >> guest: not yet but it is possible they could. in general they don't have much to say in the gun rights debate, if they choose to there are a couplee of cases and also another case from maryland and has been reluctant to weigh in on the gun rights in 2008 that was the big decision for the individual rights to bear arms and the constitutional second amendment.

>> but they have not weighed in on that case and this could give them the option to do that. >> but that court canceled arguments that were scheduled october 10thng what are the ban with the muslim majority countries? what is going on with this?. >> and with this executive order. and with preliminary decisions that was the 90 days travel ban now expired and from that same day with

the new travel and.gument and then to take off that argument calendar so what will they do with the case? they will end up dismissing that. >> 84 that brief overview but what else will you be watching?. >>. >> the other case is sports betting from new jersey where they try to pass a law but there is a federal law that says that they can. this is a charge to back. >> what else?. >> we talked about the basic

case and there has the privacy rights case withears. cell phones and they are getting into the issue like technology and privacy and if the police need a warrant trying to access the historic information the information that things on your phone that the police can use to figure out where somebody is or was over a long period. this could set a new standard, they get the information which could be applied in other cases don't align. >> this is a brief overview we will get you back during the term but we want to move on to other business. thanks for your time

[inaudible conversations] our meeting will come to order.