Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]  CSPAN  April 3, 2010 7:00pm-7:30pm EDT

7:00 pm
information stored on your device, like your computer at home or in your mobile phone, instead, used for that on a cloud -- you store that on a cloud. you could see your pictures on the tv screen, your mobile phone, your computer when you're at another city or office. you can access your information any place because the information is in the cloud recall it cloud computing. the clout could be on googled's server, verizon's server, or various places. i'm not sure i am using the right terminology. in essence, i was saying that the power is going to move away from the person who maybe has the wire to your house that you use or who has the cell phone tower that you may use at the moment, and be with the company
7:01 pm
that is storing that information for you, with whom you entrust it. that is changing dramatically the shape of the industry, as i see it. >> finally, this is a little out of your area, but can we get a read from you on verizon bidding and iphone -- getting an iphone? .
7:02 pm
>> well, we're trying to figure it out. this is a merger between a satellite company and venture- capital company. the venture capital company has agreed to conditions with the fcc, but these conditions can out friday and apply to us, have impact on us. we have no access to any discussions going on at the fcc, there is no transparency, all the filings are confidential. so suddenly we find out these
7:03 pm
entities agreed to conditions that impact us. this does not seem like a fair process. the other factor of concern right now is that of the precedent this sets, if it is going to happen. because while some things may not be earth shattering, it could be traveling down the road. that is why we're taking a hard look at it, right now. >> thank you both. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next on "america and the courts," ken starr takes part in a moot court on whether non- citizens can be denied a life- saving vaccine. also, the head of the national ballot for the humanities talks
7:04 pm
about the importance of understanding american history, culture, and the arts. >> tomorrow on " newsmakers," mitch daniels talks about how health care could impact his state. he also discusses a run in 2012. here on c-span. >> this weekend on "c-span2's booktv," nell painter on inventing a white race. president reagan's ambassador to the ussr on mikhail gorbachev's role in britney and the soviet empire. and the author of the best- selling book, "the immortal life
7:05 pm
of henrietta lacks." >> coming up sunday, it looked at the health-care law alexander hefner and jonathan strong. consumer data industry pres ident stuart pratt. and steven wayne of georgetown on how presidents learn the job of presidency. live at 7;00 here on c-span. this is "america and the courts." up next, a moot court on whether non u.s. citizens can be denied a life-saving vaccine. in this hypothetical case, an illegal immigrant was not allowed to receive eight vaccine shot in arizona because he was not a citizen.
7:06 pm
>> all persons having business between the supreme court of the united states, the court is now sitting. god save the united states and its honorable court. all right.
7:07 pm
>> you may be seated. good afternoon, and thank you again for your patience. i am todd brewster, the director for the peter jennings project. i would like to welcome you. since 2007, the mood court has been honored by the participation of some of the most important people in what. -- law. seats are arranged in chronological order. to the left is a judge in the second circuit court and dean of
7:08 pm
yale law school, on the board of the peter jennings project, intimately involved in this project since its inception. he knew peter jennings well. he has always been a wise counsel on matters, but this is his first year with which we have entered his company. welcome. we have the dean of the university pennsylvania law school and a longtime friend of the peter jennings project. having served as a judge in the moved several times before. welcome, mike. judge cavanaugh is on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. welcome. last year, tim lewis came here in a wave of confidence. his steelers had just won the super bowl. if he seems more humble this time around, just note that the
7:09 pm
steelers did not qualify from the playoffs. p.j. judge, marjorie rendell, first lady of pennsylvania, but not for long. she says she will play more active roles. next to her is my close friend barry shower, who retired from the court and served in the appellate division. barry also has the distinction upholding a position at three schools at the same time, gil, wesleyan, and eternity. -- yale, wesleyan, and trinity.
7:10 pm
our next guest is also a three- time pjp veteran. far end, jan ting, prof. of law here in philadelphia who in 2006 was a republican candidate for u.s. senator in delaware. he is the son of chinese immigrants and teaches immigration law, he is also well suited to today's topic. judith kay, another dear friend, as was her late husband stephen. stephen was a frequently luncheon companion of mind. he loved the new york yankees and metropolitan opera. as a mets fan, that was hard for me to say. a great american who revered the constitution, steve is missed, because he would have so enjoyed being here today.
7:11 pm
the first woman to hold the highest judicial office is now counsel to a new york city firm. judith and stephen new peter well. they lived in the same building, and i know her dedication to appearing here in her fourth year as chief judge also has a lot to do it honoring her friendship with peter. judith, we are deeply grateful. the list of those who have argued before the new record is impressive, and the pri kathleen sullivan, miguel estrada, and others have all competed for the attention of this panel. i am pleased to announce the today arguing this side of the state of oars on a will be in the net -- nina pillard. she appeared before the supreme court on 25 cases and served on the legal counsel the department of justice during the clinton
7:12 pm
administration. (arguing the side of the immigrant, sokae elesanjo. kenneth starr will become the 17th president of baylor university this june. any of you who complain about deadlines, those journalists today, and sleep deprivation, it should take note of can today. he took the red eye to philadelphia, and he was teaching his workshop at 9. when he arrived this morning i watched him carefully to see if he was adding strange substances to his coffee and can swear he has not. thank you for your dedication to this project. today's case was prepared by a yale law student with a terrific future ahead of him. he is attending today. will you stand up and receive applause?
7:13 pm
joel is the godfather. we will read the hypothetical. thank you. >> here is 2021, and the supreme court of the united states is going to share a highly controversial case that grew out of desperate emergency. here is the story. the previous summer, a massive global outbreak of an unusual form of simeon flu struck united states, causing panic among the general population. for healthy adults, the mortality rate is approximately 10%. it is far deadlier in children
7:14 pm
and pregnant women. a child infected with the flu faces a 30% chance of debt and a 40% chance of brain damage. a pregnant woman has an equal chance of death and an 85% chance of miscarriage. expecting a surge of cases later in the year, u.s. pharmaceutical companies rushed to produce vaccines to cope with a sudden need. but even at peak production, these companies could not meet demand among american citizens. to compound the problem, the population of mexico has already been hit especially hard with disease, and as it spread, the united states girded for what it expected to be an onslaught of mexicans pushing over the border to get vaccines the u.s. supply. in october 2020, with the country already in a state of alarm, congress and right house -- white house pressure to take some sort of action.
7:15 pm
it was a measure providing for emergency funding and distribution. addressing a. to schedule, who should get the first vaccine, and who should wait? everyone agreed health workers, pregnant women, and children deserve priority, but activists are concerned it would make a burdening immigration project already worse, vigorously recommending citizenship for anyone before they could obtain a vaccine. immigration groups, immigration rights groups insisted vaccination should be distributed without regard to immigration status. carter in weeks of gridlock -- that never happens now, but this is the future, and a rising death toll, congress's public approval rating plummeted. violence broke out as the flow
7:16 pm
of illegal immigrants intensified. members of congress first tackled the district of columbia, with u.s. citizens at the top of the statutory hierarchy. after a two weeks of negotiation, lawmakers were a stalemate. seized by the need to do something, the house and senate agreed to a bill that give priority to health workers, pregnant women and children, but conveniently punted on the key issue of immigration. statutory language, which she did not have in your pamphlet, listen carefully. the center for disease control shell in coordination with each state's department of health, determine the appropriate number of vaccines for distribution in every state. the following groups will be given priority in the calculation.
7:17 pm
each stop may add chopped any -- each state may adopt any measures necessary to further public health. as to where and the scheme of things, non-citizens will be considered differently it all reports are deemed relevant. it said problem bill does not address the degree of priority for providing vaccines to aliens, state authorities, being at the forefront of distribution, are expected to remain alert to the interplay of public health and immigration madness -- magnet risks.
7:18 pm
further clouding interpretations on both sides of this intense argument read the bill as a victory for their party. senate majority leader joseph pace, no relation, announced the state have a better grasp than congress of public needs occupied within the party. the public can rest assured that if state government will distribute vaccines appropriately. the house minority whip founded a different note. a humane course has been founded, giving all human beings within american borders an equal chance of a healthy life. arizona's legislature chose to see things senator pays's way, interpreting silence as an invitation to citizenship based parties systems, passing along
7:19 pm
that gave non-citizens the lowest priority in receiving vaccines. less than the year of waffle residents could receive -- lawful residents could receive the vaccine at all. in 2001, an emigrant for nigeria out who lawfully resided in the united states for two years went to a local clinic in tucson to get vaccinated for sonia -- simian flu. despite being two months pregnant, she was turned away. the clerk told her that by arizona law, she must wait until the next population is declared within the priority scheme. in response, she launched a suit in federal court against arizona's attorney-general, jennifer morse and, challenging the law on the grounds it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the united states constitution
7:20 pm
and injured with exclusive powers over immigration matters. after careful consideration of the case, the district court of public wall -- upheld the law, finding that congress had upheld priority for citizens. they found the state's acting under ballot delegation and that the courtroom except the same level of review for policies of the state as they would congressional policies, that is, rational basis. if they were convinced there is a rational mode behind the law, namely part to rising health and u.s. citizens and deterring aliens from entering the united states to obtain vaccination, it determined the law should stand at district court. on appeal, three judge panel of the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit reversed. there, a two-judge majority found congress constitutionally incapable of delegating powers
7:21 pm
over immigration to the state, and in concurrence, a third judge agreed with the lower court the law was enacted under a valid delegation and a rational basis was applied, but block fails -- the law failed even this permissive test with evidence of the outbreak in immigrant communities. arizona successfully petitioned the arizona supreme court, and today in an unusual session, the supreme court moved chambers from washington to these chambers here in philadelphia to be heard before the fellows of the peter jennings project for journalism and the constitution. today you hear the case. >> thank you so much. joe pace, we thank you for a fascinating, interesting times ahead and probably no one here is more grateful than miss pil lard, upon whom we now call.
7:22 pm
>> thank you matter chief justice, and may it please the court, there is no more basic role of government under the constitution than to safeguard the lives of members of our national -- >> will you be reserving time for rebuttal? >> yes. aliens are rushing to the borders to obtain a scarce exit against simian flu. government has a compelling interest in prioritizing the distribution of vaccine for citizens. >> so you looked to the statute, then, don't you? that is the basis for your argument? >> it is. whether we find a prioritizing of citizens against non- citizens in the statute, the federal statute, which is which in congress' power, authorize
7:23 pm
the state to balance competing considerations of public health and also to respond to the immigration magnet concerns that were so much debated in congress. >> that is not really stated in the statute. the statute said that the state may adopt criteria for distributing as is deemed necessary to further public health. there is a public health focus in congress' enactment, no reference at all to immigration. shouldn't congress, if they intended immigration to be something concerned with, highly unusual, shouldn't they have had to make that specific? >> it is true that the statute does not explicitly in the language refer to the immigration magnet concern, but broadly gives the delegation to the states. >> it talks about public health. how does citizenship and
7:24 pm
durational requirements relate to public health? >> citizenship requirements relate to public health in the sense that there is a scarce supply of the vaccine, and there has been a high incidence in mexico and other countries, and what we are concerned for is that the vaccine be deployed in an effective way. >> focus on the population. that is the major focus, it is the population. the second focuses on priority groups. there is no designation in the statute about the population. no need for congress to draft excluding factors. congress has set forth priority,
7:25 pm
so how do you get there? >> is clear in this during community report the most authoritative place of legislature we have expressively points to the need for the state to take a balancing of the immigration magnet concerns and public health. let me to speak to -- >> the thought of the actual language, second to the actual language of the statute saying it is the highest priority, so on what basis as the state looked at -- [inaudible] >> the federal statute expressly grants the federal authority to add additional criteria. >> if i may, counsel, why is
7:26 pm
this -- this is being denied, a woman who is also being denied an unborn child she is bearing, and that child is going to be an american citizen. she is an american citizen and has it right to be here under asylum. so how is this statute properly applied? do we find out whether we have the standard apply here? or should we simply deny this as granted because this statute does not really apply to the case? >> justice, pregnancy does not
7:27 pm
rendered the statute equivocal to the american citizen. an unborn child is not an american citizen, and it is not clear whether this child will be going in the united states. >> ariz., in choosing to exclude non-citizens because of the things you have said, the danger of immigrants coming in, also meant to deprive those who are citizens to be. >> there is not a precedent requiring that, however, we will -- the arizona law, consistent with existing law, the unborn child
7:28 pm
-- >> under the specific provisions get priority. you talk about the second part of the statute, but the first priority, how do you even get here, to the fact this woman was pregnant? >> she was pregnant, but as arizona reads the statute, she was not in the priority, because those are limited to citizens, and it is our understanding -- >> it does not. we do have to rest on an implication. we do.
7:29 pm
the legislating background, debates in congress, the situation we know is on the back -- that is true, although the authority with the committee report does directly -- >> address the question judge sloviter asked you, which is where and the winds of priority a pregnant woman who is not an american citizen ranks. does it, or doesn't it? what the federal statute addresses this in this way, it permits the state to -- >> the state may permit within the level

292 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on