we're learning just how rare it is for folks to run to the gunfire. good job, rex. milk bones and other treats coming your way. the news continues from new york. it's time to make our schools a much harder target. when we declare our schools to be gun-free zones, it just puts our students in far more danger. we really do have to strengthen up, really strengthen up background checks. we don't want people that are mentally ill to be having any form of weaponry. welcome to the journal. that was president trump friday at the conservative political action congress, calling for steps to bolster school security and curb gun violence in the

wake of last week's deadly shooting in parkland, florida. the president held listening sessions this week, with state and local leaders and members of law enforcement. he appears to be considering several options to address mass shootings, some of which could send him on a collision course with democrat as well as members of his own party in congress. let's bring in wall street journalist, dan heniger and kim srassel. you wrote a column saying republicans may be going too far in some of their gun control measures. let's start with whether or not this event in florida has really changed fundamentally the politics of gun control. >> i think that it has to a certain degree, in that it's another horrific shooting. but it's also added some new elements to the discussion in

that what we're seeing down there was a total breakdown at every level of government and doing the right thing. the fbi was tipped off about this. the broward county police department heard about this kid 23 separate times. social services did nothing. now we find out that the deputy was sitting outside, even though he was armed and trained and did not intervene. and so there's an institutional question that's been added here, but also democrats are doubling down on their gun control and i think people feel something has to change. >> but that's the point, kim. something has to change. the kids in parkland are making a huge issue. they marched on tallahassee in florida, it seems to be having an impact on the republicans, seemseems to be having an impacn donald trump. are republicans going to have to do something? >> they've got some good ideas, like fixing the national instant criminal background check system, making that database

stronger and they're talking more about mental health. those are the best things we can do from an immediate perspective. unfortunately, donald trump and marco rubio also decided they would go down the path and they are talking about raising the age limit for buying guns and potentially banning large capacity magazines. these are not things that will help and i think a lot of republicans will not go along with that. >> dan, what do you make of the politics there? >> i don't think it's a fundamental turn but it is a turn in the sense there's an overwhelming desire to do something about all of this, the politics are very strong in that direction. >> it's horrific. you want your children to be safe. that's the fundamental political impetus here. >> on the gun control side, you've got people who want to take measures such as increasing registration, background checks. on the other hand, you have democrats who at the end of the day want bans on certain kinds of guns, such as semiautomatic rifles. as soon as you raise the word "ban" you also raise the second

amendment and republicans fall off the train of doing anything about gun control. so there's that issue. once the democrats start pushing bans, the issue falls apart. the other one kim mentioned is mental health. in virtually all of the shootings, whether in florida, newtown, aurora, university of west virginia, every one of the shooters was severely mentally ill. donald trump mentioned that in his cpac speech. he talked about this. this is basically off the table as far as congress is concerned. that's not in the middle of the argument we're having right now. washington post did a poll on this in the past week. 77% of respondents said mental illness was the primary cause of the shootings. >> bill? >> i think mental illness is a big part of it but it's not the only part. politically, the republicans are in a position because there's a republican congress and a republican president to do something. i'm very skeptical. i'm not a gun owner, have no

desire to own a gun. but apart from the constitutional issues, which i think are very strong, i think there's just a practical issue. there's 300 million guns i believe out in america and there's eight and-a-half million boys in high school and we're going to trust the federal government to sift through all this, identify the people or the weapons that are going to be used in a mass shooting? i think before we could have a or do something that means something, we need to have a rational debate. if you look at what happened on cnn the other night, the two minute hate from marco rubio and the woman from the nra, this is not the path to a sane solution. >> you're not arguing a council of despair, are you, where you say anything we do want make a difference? >> i saw i think it was geraldo rivera, so you're for doing nothing? i think it's reasonable to demand that you have evidence

that what you do will have the effect you claim it will have. there's clearly a move, it's not just bans on guns, people want consistent phconfiscation. they invoke australia all the time and australia confiscated all the weapons. even they're not clear, they didn't have that many mass shootings before. >> let's say we get a bill through congress, raises the age to 21 for buying guns, eliminates bump stocks, strengthens registrations, strengthens background checks, becomes federal law, two years later we have another shooting. are we back at the same -- >> we are, absolutely. politically, the house passed a bill as you know that included a couple of these things, the better registration -- close one of these background check loopholes but they paired it with a law that is a priority of the national rifle association, which is reciprocal concealed carry. this means if you have a concealed carry weapons permit in texas, you can go to new york city, which is very hard to get

a gun, and still carry there. shouldn't republicans just drop that provision and put out the stuff that they know can pass? >> they should, politically. because otherwise they risk looking cynical here. because this fix nix bill which goes to the background check thing has widespread report among republicans and democrats. it would sail through the house and sail through the senate and by attaching this other provision, which democrats in the senate are likely to kill, you put at risk the background check bill. the other way they can do it is put both of them on the floor separately, send them to the senate and let the senate democrats take responsibility for killing what is an interesting piece of legislation and probably would help some with gun crime too. >> we'll be talking about this for a while. still ahead, amid the partisan divide over gun control, are there some solutions for curtailing gun violence that both sides can agree on? ing. ...and help you feel more strength and energy

in just two weeks! i'll take that. -yeeeeeah! ensure high protein. with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure. always be you. so allstate is giving us money back on our bill. well, that seems fair. we didn't use it. wish we got money back on gym memberships. get money back hilarious. with claim-free rewards. switching to allstate is worth it.

like you do sometimes, grandpa? and puffed... well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol.

medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

amid the fallout from last week's school shooting in parkland and the partisan divide over gun control, my next guest says there are concrete ways to reduce gun violence in the u.s. that both sides just might be able to agree on. john carlson is the host on kbi radio in seattle. he was a co-author of washington state's "three strikes and you're out." mr. carlson, great to see you. you argued in our pages this week that the thing to focus on is enforcing the laws we already have. most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. what are the facts to back that up? >> fundamentally speaking, we have sudden mass shootings like in florida and then we have slow motion mass shootings like in -- you know, 20 people shot dead in chicago which is an improvement over last year during the month

of january. and the overwhelming number of guns used in the commission of these crimes are illegally obtained. what we need to do in this country, paul, is not h declarea war on certain types of guns and accessories. we need to declare a war on illegal guns, guns that are stolen, guns that are stolen and sold or smuggled and sold, guns from straw purchases, which is where someone who is allowed legally to buy a gun, does so and turns the gun over to someone else, usually at a huge profit, who cannot buy a gun. if we focus -- >> paul: you want to focus on that. it's a fair point and an interesting one. if the staw chute the stat stats right now, why aren't we enforcing them now? >> because they're not high

priorities. the federal law against straw purchases has a penalty up to 10 years but it's a low federal priority. the president and attorney general sessions can change that immediately, if they want to. and i hope they'll want to. so that's one area where we need to stigmatize not firearms, but illegal firearms. we need to ratchet up the penalties of people who steal guns and who sell them. >> paul: but if you're a gang banger in chicago and we know most of the murders in much of chicago are done by gang members, are you really going to be he deterred from getting an illegal gun or getting your buddy who is not banned because he doesn't have a criminal record yet from buying a gun and giving it to you? i don't see that being a large deterrent. >> if the penalty -- let's say you're stopped and patted down. if the penalty for an illegal gun is four years mandatory,

then, yes, i think you're going to be deterred. that's what is not in the law is deterrents, but if you deter people from carrying illegal guns or acquiring illegal guns, then, yes, you'll see the supply dry up, the supply dries up and criminals have trouble getting guns which they don't have trouble getting right now. the second issue is of course mentally ill people acquiring. >> paul: i think everybody can agree we would like to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. the problem that i see, and we've been talking about this for many years, is state laws that make it -- many state laws make it very hard to intervene, even somebody who looks like they are a threat and either forcing them to get on their medication, hospitalizing them, much less taking a gun out of their hands. >> this is especially drew i try state in washington where you

have to be in imminent threat, meaning at that moment. those state laws i hope will change but they could use a nudge from the federal government. i believe the president should convene a task force, law enforcement should be on the task force, representatives of people who are developmentally disabled, victims of crime, et cetera, and the sole purpose of the task force should be to draw a line at allowing authorities to preemptively deny some mentally ill people from legally acquiring a weapon. kim was right, not all people who get ar-15s or other rifles or pistols acquire them legally. adam lanza, the newton, connecticut shooter killed his mother and stole her rifle. but you can make it harder for them to do so, because for every one of these mass shootings that

is publicized nationally, a lot of them are happening locally that you don't hear much about and again, they almost always involve mentally ill people who manage to legally acquire the weapon. we need to draw a line and it won't be easy to do, there's lots of obstacles in the way, constitutional, associat socialr obstacles but i think it has to be done. i think everyone agrees, president trump, the democratic party, the nra, the school protesters agree that the shooter in parkland should not have been allowed to have a gun and yet he had one. how do we work together to keep that from happening as you saw the other night in the town hall, all we heard was name calling, yelling and swearing. >> paul: we have to start the conversation. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> paul: still ahead the trump

administration announcing new sanctions against north korea in a bid to turn up the heat over its nuclear program. so will it work? we all want to know about the new thing.

you know, the new, new thing. with xfinity's retail stores, you can now see the latest. want to test drive the latest devices?

be our guest. want to save on mobile? just ask. want to demo the latest innovations and technology? do it here. come see how we're making things simple, easy, and awesome. plus come in today and ask about xfinity mobile, a new kind of network designed to save you money. visit your local xfinity store today. >> paul: the trump administration announcing new sanctions against north korea friday, hitting more than 50 vessels, shipping and trading companies in the latest bid to turn up the hit on pyongyang over its nuclear program. we are back with dan, kim and bill mcgern. what do you make of the new sanctions? they focus on shipping. >> they've sanctioned a lot of vessels they identified as doing transfers. they've got pictures of the north koreans changing the registration on ships, off-loading material onto other

ships. they've identified people in taiwan who have been participating in this. those people will be sanctioned. in addition to the ones they did in january, i think it's a move in the right direction. it's a good idea. and indeed, north korea is being squeezed. shortages of fuel, shortages of food. the question is, at this point in this di lemma dill lem lemmag to make a difference? kim jong un has the vessels. he's has the bombs. is he going to bend to this or is he going to gut it out, another year and push forward with his nuclear strategy. >> paul: i would argue on these sanctions and i take dan's point, i think it's the right one. the bigger question is will they work. on the sanctions you're going to have to board some of these ships, i think. i don't think some of these companies are going to stop. that would be a more immediate deterrent if you boarded ships, you say it come from a north korean port and confiscate it.

>> i'm dubious about sanctions in general, unless they're against a developed country. the idea is to create pressure on a regime. if you're a regime like his, you're willing to let his people suffer because the payoff is so huge. the payoff is the ability to strike america. if he has that, it's a security he can't buy. look at the last guy that gave up his nukes, qaddafi. is that an argument that would persuade kim that this is the way to go. he's playing for very big stakes. i'm of the view that he will not give up his nukes without military strike of some kind and that carries a terrible price. i think we're in a game right now where kim is playing for time and madis is trying to find options, to carve out more options that aren't as bloody for innocent people as a strike would be. >> paul: one thing that stood out for me is are there are a e

of chinese entities on the list but not many, not a lot. we're trying to persuade china to be the main enforcer on north korea. unless china becomes our partner in that endeavor, the north koreans will figure they have enough loopholes. the u.s. has not hit cha chinese financial firms and chinese practices as hard as it can under the sanctions regime. >> that could be the next step, paul. what's interesting about the sanctions is they seem to be designed as well to put the world on notice. they're not just listing the names of the 56 entities. they're putting out a shipping bulletin, identifying some of these flagged ships, pointing out the ways in which north koreans hide the names of ships and use deceptive practices, ship to ship transfers. so what they're saying to the world is we're serious about this and you guys, as part of

the united nations, you need to help us respect this and do something. so that's a warning shot to china as well too. and i think that that's encouraging for those of us who believe that china really is going to be instrumental, if not the main path to something happening with north korea in the end. >> paul: one of the things that's useful about these sanctions right now is their timing, because they come at the end of the olympics in south korea. they come two weeks after the western press fawned over the sister of kim jong un as he was making a shift, she wa visit, sa visit to south korea. they send a message to not just the world but president moon of south korea who is doveish when it comes to the north and mind i think bribing north korea to get into negotiations, because he's supported that in the past, but it sends a message saying u.s. policy isn't changing here. >> that's what vice president pence said when he was in korea and he got a lot of flag for it.

president moon and president trump have different interests. president moons and the south koreans have been hostages to north korea for 60 years. they're the international equivalent of a guy with a suicide vest. if you're willing to blow yourself up and take a lot of innocent people, so things haven't changed for south korea. there's no more lethal threat to south korea. vice president pence and president trump are dealing with a threat to the united states. i think looking to the south koreans for a strong policy is very difficult. they've been hostages. they get upset when we look too strong and they get upset when we look too soft. i think america has to forge its policy. >> the goal is dene denucleariz. what incentives will we give kim, stand down, dismantle the nuclear program or try to joint with south korea. that's still a challenge. >> paul: still ahead, america's pastor dead at the age of 99. we'll remember the life and

legacy of the reverend billy graham when we come back. (vo) dogs have evolved,

but their nutritional needs remain instinctual. that's why there's purina one true instinct. real meat #1. a different breed of natural nutrition. purina one true instinct. now, try new purina one true instinct treats.

>> paul: he was called america's pastor. the reverend billy graham, who preached to an estimated 215 million people in 185 countries and served as a counselor to a dozen american presidents, died wednesday at the age of 99. joining me now with a look back at his life and legacy is

russell moore, president of the ethics and religious liberty commission at the southern baptist convention. welcome, good to see you again. so why was billy graham such a significant figure in american life for half a century, at least? >> well, i think part of it had to do with his unique gifts. he was an amazing communicator. part of it had to do with the fact that he had such strong conviction and that was obvious to everyone. and part of it had to do with the rise of technology. so billy graham was always several steps ahead of technological waves. so using not only radio, but television and then later in his ministry even the internet to carry the gospel all across the world. >> paul: so he used radio, he used tv, he used mass rallies. it's fascinating. but those were mass media. you mentioned even using the internet. i wonder, what would he have done -- you said he used the internet but what would he have

done if in his heyday there was social media? >> well, that would be a very different sort of world. because if one thinks about what television was able to do, most people were watching a very limited number of channels. now we have the ability for such widespread and diffuse technologies that people are very rarely actually watching the same thing. so that would be a much more difficult world to communicate the gospel in. but i believe billy graham would have found a way to do it. >> paul: it's a challenge that you have, you and other people of faith have right now. why was he so influential, billy graham, with american presidents? >> i think part of the reason for billy graham's success is the fact that we have a world in which people would often say if you just trim your message a little bit and don't believe things that the american people will think be strange or at least don't talk about them, talk about ways that faith

generically defined can help you have a better family, better marriage, things along those lines, billy graham never did that. he he used the technology but he kept the old mess average he wa. -- message. he talked about the existence of god but of sin, day of judgment, the need to come to god through christ and blood atonement. so i think that was part of it is that people knew when they were listening to billy graham that he wasn't trying to sell people anything. and that was especially important when you see all of the major evangelists across the 20th century who fell due to sexual scandal or financial scandal. billy graham was above reproach, unimpeachable personal integrity. that a was part of his appeal. >> paul: there was criticism in the obituaries that maybe he did sometimes get a little too close to president as was the case

withlwith richard nixon where by graham said things on tape that he later apologized for. he said those things in private. politicians like to use religious figures. did he get too close? >> he did and he said so. he took his experience with richard nixon and used that as a teaching moment for american religious figures and to say this can very easily happen. people can become he seduced by power. people can have personal connection that's can sometimes unintentionally conflate the kingdom of god with a partisan political agenda. notice what billy graham did from watergate forward. he was able to minister to people across the spectrum of partisan and ide idea idealogicl political divide. he also prayed with bill clinton

and everyone else in between. >> paul: is there a comparable religious figure who is comparable to billy graham's influence, or is it possible? >> i don't think there is right now but i don't think that's unusual. i think billy graham is the unusual figure. i think he's a singularly unusual figure in probably over 1,000 years. i think god will raise up another billy graham. he or she will be a different figure in american life. but -- and maybe not an american, probably not an american. >> paul: really? that's fascinating. >> i don't know who that person is. you think of c.s. lewis, the great apologist of the 20th century, started out as an atheist scholar. another man turned into a great driver of prison ministry and evangelism across the country. the next billy graham might be

someone who is not even a christian yet. >> paul: fascinating to contemplate. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> paul: when we come back, a battle over the congressional map in pennsylvania, could make or break democratic efforts to take back the house this november. patrick woke up with back pain. but he has work to do. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong.

ancestrydnand now,y $69. with more than 150 ethnic regions to connect to... ...it's the perfect time to find out where your greatness comes from. save 30% at ancestrydna.com.

like you do sometimes, grandpa? and puffed... well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems.

symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. >> paul: pennsylvania's highest court threw the keystone state into political turmoil this week when it imposed a new congressional district map just months before the may primary. in a 5-2 ruling in january, the supreme court's democratic majority threw out the congressional map adopted by the republican legislature in 2011 deeming it an unconstitutional gerrymander, those same justices released a new map monday which is widely viewed as giving democrats an edge in november as they seek to recapture control of the u.s. house. we're back with dan heniger, kim

strassel and alicia finley. so alicia, you covered this for us. why would the supreme court of pennsylvania throw out a map in 2018 that was written in 2011 if it was so unconstitutional? why didn't they get to it earlier? >> you have liberal groups that sued last year. now you have a democratic governor. and these are partisan elected judges. it's actually a 5-2 democratic majority of the state supreme court. so they knew they had a winning hand on the supreme court when they brought this case. >> paul: thosthis was a moment f political opportunity. >> exactly. a sin l call one at that. -- a cynical one at that. they sued and the supreme court held in january that these were partisan gerrymanders that violated the state constitution's guarantee of free and equal elections. >> paul: what do you make of the argument? >> that's a ridiculous argument. it's based on an individual's -- it was basically intended so that you cannot discriminate

against black people. that was the real original intent. >> paul: no racial discrimination. >> racial discrimination, right. now they're making this to be about equal representation -- >> paul: by political party. >> right. if you go down that road, i think justice rekliff said in the case, well, equal representation by religion, how do you draw the line there. >> paul: this is even more important, dan, because the supreme court is considering a couple of cases, one in wisconsin, i think one in maryland. >> maryland. >> paul: that would -- whether or not partisan gerrymanders of this kind are unconstitutional more broadly and if they say that, i think we're off to the races every single congressional map will be challenged. >> yeah, paul. the question is do courts want to get into that race. some obviously like the court of

pennsylvania does. but is that what we want? look, for some strange reason, humanity divides itself politically into left and right, liberals and conservatives. the dthis is true all over the , you divide up a state or a country into districts, how do you decide which members of which party should be in those districts? no one has ever come up with a good answer to that. we have the elections clause in our constitution which says explicitly that state legislatures are responsible for doing this. it's not a perfect process, but if the courts start intervening in this, as you say, we are off to the races because you'll have different systems all over the country. >> paul: a partisan gerrymander rendered by judges isn't any better than a partisan gerrymander rendered by one of the political parties. >> exactly. what was the base is for the pennsylvania court's decision? why is that more rational than

what the legislature would have done? >> they said we will create the standards that the districts must be contiguous, subdivide counsel icountys in the least nf ways. this is nowhere in the constitution. it created a new standard. they sathey could still be unconstitutional if they meet the standard. >> paul: the cost, kim, could be for the inte integrity of the cs because if the courts are suddenly caught willy-nilly making decisions, political decisions over every gerrymander map, the danger is that the public will think they're more partisan and political than many people already think they are and that really does work to undermine the integrity of the law over time. >> look how nakedly partisan this is. the way it was set up by outside groups, the timing of when they brought this all designed and the courts ran with it, the

pennsylvania court did, and it's caused complete mayhem in the state as well, not only a lot of very ugly partisan sniping about this, bringing the courts in and bragging it through the mud but it will have ramifications in the near future as we move into a special election that's coming up in pennsylvania and obviously the mid-terms later this fall which a decision like this could potentially imperil the republican majority in the house. >> paul: on that point, larry sabatow changed his ratings based on this new map. he said one toss-up made a safe democratic seat. three republican seats are now toss-up and there's five seats moving more towards the democrats. it could be decisive in november. >> there's 20 they need to win 24 seats. where you'll really see the

difference is in the philadelphia suburbs which were already going to be battlegrounds. they'll be leaning democrat. if you get a huge democratic wave, they will probably go democrat. >> paul: here's the other question. i don't think there's any -- we know that the pennsylvania map was partisan for republicans. okay? they took that opportunity. but the democrats have drawn partisan maps in illinois. they've drawn partisan maps in massachusetts. they've drawn partisan maps in california. the massachusetts doesn't even have one republican congressman. >> california is a democratic principality now. as hard as the gerrymander issue is, it's a good thifnlg i don't want the courts involved. it's a good thing to raise it publicly and lean on the legislatures for not essentially going too far. you have to rely on the common sense of legislatures not to do as they did in illinois sand california. >> paul: when we come back, all eyes are on the justice neil

gore such asuch gets ready to hr arguments in a potentially landmark legal case. should workers be forced to pay dues for union representation they don't want. >> nobody asked me if i wanted to join. they just said here's a job, you're in the union. ♪ no, please, please, oh! ♪ (shrieks in terror) (heavy breathing and snorting) no, no. the running of the bulldogs? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money aleia saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

>> paul: the supreme court set to hear oral arguments monday in one of the most closely watched cases of the term. at issue, whether state and local government employees can be forced to pay union due as a condition of their employment. the case was brought by mark janice, an illinois child welfare worker who argues that his first amendment rights are being violated by a state law

that compels him to paycheck testify bargaining fee toss the american federation of state, county and municipal employees, a union that he says does not represent his values and interests. we're back with dan heniger, alicia finley and bill mcgern. the court has considered this in the past and said unions can collect these fees. why are they rethinking that? >> they have considered in the past but the last time they were about to consider it, justice scalia was on the court and he died and probably would have gone the other way. >> paul: the case was settled and nothing changed. >> the thinking was that justice skaly yscalia would have weighen >> paul: you're talking about a 40 year precedent. what's changed with the court?

>> you're compelling a worker to support the union activities. i think you can choose not to be in the union, but the union -- >> paul: you still interest to pay the fees. >> the union is a big political player. a lot of their power depends on coercion, the ability to coerce funds from people under the guise, well, i represent them and he benefits from our collective bargaining. but my view is very simple. workers should be free to join unions and organize unions but they should also be free not to join unions and not have their money taken away from them. >> paul: the argument is the workers should not be compelled to support speech that they don't support or causes that they don't support, and that is just as much a violation of the first amendment as saying you can't speak at all. >> right. so what many states are requiring is to subsidize, pay agency fee toss the union, -- fe

union, regardless of whether they join the union. they are plight l call. political. wages, health benefits, those are matters of public debate, including merit pay for teachers. unions take positions at the bargaining table. these are issues that do implicate free speech. >> paul: dan? >> to alicia's point. unions have changed over the years. everyone out there probably says i know what unions do, they bargain to protect wages and workers' rights. why are the unionse unions favog comprehensive sex education, voteing rights for felons and things like that. i think the justices understood that over the last 45 years these unions have not just --

are no longer just unions, they've become active political parties. the character of the unions have changed materially in that time and so the first amendment issues become much more important, just as mr. janice is suggesting here. >> paul: is there, from a legal point of view, a distinction between private sector unions, people representing a company like ford motor, and public unions which represent the government? >> further to dan's point, we're talking about government worker unions in this. >> paul: correct. >> where they're guaranteed first amendment rights, not the same in a private sector union. i think going even further, the unions today are a huge force in the political life and i think we said it many times in owed tore y'alls. when they're negotiating with politicians, in many cases they're the boss of the politicians, especially for democrats. they're more likely to be in a position ptotic tate t to dice

politicians to make the decisions. it's an influence in governmen. >> paul: how do you see this turning out, alicia, on the court? >> i think it going 5-4. i think gorsuch will favor first amendment right. >> paul: will they overturn the precedent of 40 years? >> i think they will. they've considered a number of other cases in recent years that they didn't have to go all the way an and overturn in those ca. they were critical of aa booed d its analysis. >> paul: the case was brought originally by the governor of illinois. he has been unable to move this. if they aren't as powerful in raising money, this could have a

big effect on state governance. >> absolutely. the public unions in the state overplayed their hand. they will not contribute or refuse to contribute anything to their pension cost or health care cost, killing state budgets. governors have had no choice but to take on the unions in this way. i think the supreme court will be aware of that and if they rule this way, a lot of the union power in the states is going to begin to recede. >> paul: fascinating. we'll watch it closely. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪ it takes a lot of work to run this business. but i really love it. i'm on the move all day long... and sometimes, i don't eat the way i should. so, i drink boost to get the nutrition i'm missing. boost high protein nutritional drink has 15 grams of protein to help maintain muscle and 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d. all with a great taste.

boost gives me everything i need... to be up for doing what i love. boost high protein be up for it hey, need fast try cool mint zantac. it releases a cooling sensation in your mouth and throat. zantac works in as little as 30 minutes. nexium can take 24 hours. try cool mint zantac. no pill relieves heartburn faster.

>> paul: time now for our hits and misses of the week. kim, start us off. >> the world health organization released figures this week showing an absolute epidemic of measles in europe where the cases have quad drew peele grown

21,000 people. by comparison, the americans had 118 cases of measles and that's bad enough. this is a huge miss to the anti-vaccination crowd which has spread totally debunked information and scared people out of protecting themselves and their kids. we've got to crack down on this and get the vaccine rates back up again. >> paul: bill? >> paul, we're about to do the meanest thing anyone could do to bernie sanders. the wall street journal will give him a hit for his appearance on a radio show where he said hillary clinton should have done more to address the russian issue. he's probably upset that in robert mueller's new indictments it says the russians tried to help his campaign. he said hillary knew a lot more. the dnc did not cooperate with the fbi and let them look at their servers when they were hit. on meet the press two weeks ago he said obama should have done more. this new bernie is growing on

me. >> this is a miss to governor scott walker in wisconsin who last year was promoting a $3 million subdie for fox con for a plan to build flat screen lcd monitors. now he's under pressure to promote a subdi subsidy packager kimberly clark who has announced a layoff. >> paul: dan? >> i'm giving a hit to the american economy. unemployment claims fell to 220,000, the lowest level since 1973, as president trump pointed out in his his cpac speech. he's right. this means wages are going to rise. it impacts one other issue close to him which is where are we going to find the workers when we get down to this level? instead of deportations we'll have to think about importation of workers. >> paul: that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel. thanks to you especially for watching. i'm pau paul gigot.

we hope to see you right here next week. a report says several sheriff's deputies waited outside parkland high school as shots rang outside. students are set to return to school on wednesday. this has turned out to be another busy saturday news day. i'm connell mcshane. >> this new revelation comes a day after learning the school's own armed guard resigned after he failed to enter the school and engage the shooter as well. president trump upon hearing the news saying the guard did, quote, a poor job, vowing to make sure something like this never happens again. >> he was outside as a