and when he came to speak at yale law school, and i was sitting in the law school auditorium, reading my little book, waiting for him to come in, had never seen him before, and all of a sudden i looked up and somebody was saying, "miss wright," and he was introducing himself, and i could not believe it. and he said, "i'm malcolm x." and he knew everything about my life. i couldn't believe it. and i then found out someone from my hometown was one of his followers who had... from the bridgeport, connecticut, mosque. but anyway, we became friends. and i went down to have lunch with him a number of times in his restaurant, and he would be very funny. whenever i ordered white bread, he'd say, "don't eat that. that's got no nutrition in that." >> hinojosa: (laughs) but the fact is that even though you were a follower of martin luther king, you were... and malcolm x was clearly wanting to engage with you and you were clearly open to having broad conversations. >> of course, i mean, there's no one way to anything. in fact, malcolm x's brother, who was the social services commissioner in michi

from yale law school. his scholarship focuses on issues at the intersection of aw and political philosophy. he has written many books ", including "anti-discrimination law in social equality" and more than 80 articles of books and scholarly journals. shareek is a j.d. candidate at yale law school. he won prizes for best thesis in philosophy as well as the donte ociety of the donte prize. he's the author of the recent book "what is marriage, a man and a woman." which has been described as the most formidable defense of traditional marriage ever written. we are grateful for him in participating in this event. >> thank you so much for the introduction. thanks, everyone, for coming and a special thanks to professor koppelman. i've had the pleasure of speaking on a panel with him before and i not only respect his work a great deal but his intellectual integrity. he's willing to examine the assumptions behind views that are a lot of people are willing to just treat as dogma and that's something very admirable and

i finish with something i said a year ago at yale law school while i was still in office. as a student of history, i believe that those who govern today must ask ourselves how we will be judged 10, 20, or 50 years from now. our applications of law must and the test of time, because of the passage of time, what we find probable today may be condemned in the permanent pages of history tomorrow. our national security and the people's faith in our government depends on this. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to have a few questions and answers. i thought we might start with the panel is coming later today, this might be a good way to start of today's questions. otherwise i would just go to general questions. i see two. are either of them panelists? he is thinking. >> if this court were to be only reviewing military strikes as the purview of the aumf, what would you say to a hypothetical armed drone having drugs approved by this court that go with that not in theory make it legitimate because it would be cia dronepothetical, strikes by a civilian agency? >> are re

i think activists at the yale university law school who're very consciously doing this. they are tied to activists in europe, and they are developing this whole body of law that the social conservatives are very worried about it >> let's take euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide is okay. in the netherlands. do you know that i believe it's 65% of americans support allowing a doctor to fu fulfill terminally ill patient's right to end life >> that's one where americans are relatively close to other in need lund. 59% of americans oppose gay marriage even though of them are for civil unions. but i think this notion that there's a pipeline that's running somehow fm eupe and from the netherland to the united states i think that's the wrong metaphor. there is a battle that's going on between a culture of duty and culture of freedom or however you want to refer to or religious or secular culture. surely one of the lessons of legislation we're not taking our laws from massachusetts of supreme court or from europe that the religion matters that the religion informs that the people

van jones went to university of tennessee and yale law school. not much difference there.ked for the reagan administration. van jones worked for the obama administration. not much difference there. but there is a difference. there's a big difference. if van jones had ever said our goal is to inflict pain, it's not enough to win, it has to be a painful, devastating defeat, like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see, what would o'reilly say that night? what would sean hannity do that night? sean would devote the entire hour of his show to condemnation of van jones which i believe he has done from time to time. he would call van jones a revolutionary. those guys demonized van jones for nothing and they cheer on the revolutionary, the enemy of the government, grover norquist. and now we know how an american revolutionary company championed by the right wing media and welcomed into the halls of power by republicans in congress. two things are necessary. first of all, be white, be very, very white. and second, pretend to be a con

the supreme court by senator james buckley with the assistance of professor ralph winter from yale law school to the federal election campaign act cent contribution and expenditure limits for federal offices and also made the federal elections commission independent of the president. according to the press so as to take politics out of politics but more plausibly to lift the balance of political control towards congress and incumbents and away from the president and challengers. the solicitor general bob assembled his swat team for the cases and ray randolph and me went to work on a brief that must stand as one of history's curiosities. the brief filed, and i quote, for the attorney general and for the united states as the amicus curiae, goes to great lengths house speech and money are interchangeable and it surely would violate the first amendment to set a limit on how much "the new york times" could charge for paper and why there for there were serious problems of the contribution and expenditure limits in the statute. next time somebody tells you that a contribution or expenditure limits f

he graduated from the university of mexico and received his law degree from yale law school. each of you will be recognized for five minutes without objection. you're full written statement will appear in the record after your statement has been completed. also without objection, all members' alta misstatements will be placed in the record, as well. is first.ngiel >> thank you. chairman sensenbrenner, ranking member scott, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the department of justice regarding the electronic communications privacy act -- ecpa. this topic is particularly important to the department because of the wide-ranging -- department. is important efforts to amend keep in mind the wide- ranging scope. a scenario that comes to mind is a law enforcement agency seeking an -- seeking an aide -- seeking an e-mail to the service provider. it is critical to all criminal investigations, murder, kidnapping, organized crime, sexual abuse, and identity theft. it applies to all government entity -- entities. when they seek to have c

joining me from new haven, connecticut, akhil amar, he's the sterling professor at yale law school. from washington, jeffrey toobin of cnn and the "new yorker" magazine. with me in new york, andrew sullivan, the author and editor of the dish blog. i'm pleased to have each of them here as we look forward to tomorrow and wednesday. a historic couple days at the supreme court. jeffrey toobin, i begin with you. what's -- tell me about the court deciding to consider these cases now and hear them on consecutive days. >> well, that is major event in american history. i don't think i'm overhyping it to say this. you know, the supreme court has never said is s it okay -- has never answered the question is it okay to put gay people in one category and straight people in another and say we're going to give government benefits-- whether it's marriage, whether it's tax benefits, whether it's access to child custody-- we're going to give benefits to straight people and keep them away from gay people. that's the core question at the heart of both of these cases and we're going to know a lot more a

joining me now is jonathan, a professor at yale law school.e respected and trusted. >> right. melissa: that did not happen now. that is not the case now. >> there are greek buildings. they look designed to give people confidence and make people think these are venerable institutions. now they are in strip malls. it is not just obviously architecture, but the ways that they deal with their clients. these clients are expected to fend for themselves. melissa: do you fault the media? do you fault us for what has happened? do you think that we are a piece of the story as well? >> i think it is more a problem with the way that government regulation has affected people's expectations about what they can expect from business. melissa: carnival cruise lines, it has been a big pr disaster for this company. do you think that company can recover from what has happened to them? >> i am not sure that they need to recover. i do not know anyone who has taken a carnival cruise. i do not know anyone who knows anyone who has taken a carnival cruise. they are not

my colleague, my former colleague, steven bride at yale law school used to say that we wouldn't be ableybody -- if one person were forced to make the decision, because once you're involved with the death penalty in any way you see the unfairnesses, whether it's with the mode of execution, lethal injection or with the punishment itself. what you're trying to hold as a moral center of saying don't say oh, if it weren't for the racial disparities, this would be okay. oh, if it weren't for innocent individuals being executed, this would be okay. let's go to the ultimate moral question, the political issue and say who are we as a society and do we really believe in this culture? what bright says is the closer you get to this thing and the more you understand it, the more you realize that this will be impossible unless it was disbursed among a wide swath of people. anyone who truly understood could not push that button and put that person to death under the conditions that are currently provided. >> the one person who might or be willing to, is the victim's families. i have a very, very clear

i finish with something i said a year ago at yale law school while i was still in office: adds a student, i believe that those who governor today must ask ourselves how we will be judged ten, twenty, or fifty years from now. our application of law must stand the test of time because over the passage of time, with a we find tolerable today may be con comed in the -- condemned in the permanent pages of history tomorrow. our national security and the people's faith in our government depends on this. thank you very much. [applause] >> we're going to have a few moments -- [inaudible] >> we have to have a few moments, is what he means of q & a. so raise your hand. i thought we start if there are any panelists coming later in the day have questions they want to ask. anyone of those have a question? otherwise we'll go to general questions. okay. are any of those panelists? who is the other one? okay. jack. >> david kole has no questions, i can't believe it. >> i know. he's saving them. he's thinking. >> hi. so if this court were to be only reviewing military strikes, as the purview of the aumf,

i finish with something i said a year ago at yale law school while i was still in office. as a student of history, i believe that those who govern today must ask ourselves how we will be judged ten, 20, or 50 years from now. our applications of law must stand the test of time because over the passage of time, what we find tollerble today may be condemned in the further pages of history tomorrow. our national security and the people's faith in the government depends on this. thank you very much. [applause] >> we'll have a few moments -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, we have to have a few moments, is what i mean, of q&a graciously. raise your hand, and if you have a question, this could be a good way to start off the day's conversation. anyone with a question? otherwise, i'll go to general questions. okay. i see two. are any panelists? who's the other one? okay -- >> david has no questions, i can't believe it. >> i know. he's saving them. he's thinking. >> hi, if the court were to be only reviewing military strikes as the purview of the aumf, what would you say to a hypothetical ci

law schools. >> i think we've seen harvard, yale even stanford partly represented, and we receive more diversitye never out of order. >> you can keep that. >> thank you. >> don't lose it. >> i won't. thank you. >> "out of order" goes on sale tomorrow. oury hp yy yy eye-opening series goes on all week. the founder of angie's list angie hicks and caroline kennedy. >>> "forbes" magazine has a list of the most richest. carlos slim microsoft bill gates is number two, at number three is the head of the spanish retailer. he knocked down warren buffett. it's the first time buffett has been out of the top three since 2003. larry ellison of oracle is number 5. >> there are a record 300 female billionaires on the list. one of them is a retailer. she worked in a factory. last night on "60 minutes" lesley stahl spoke about real estate chinese democracy. >> i hear a lot in the u.s. wall street praise. how they get done so quick, so effective. it can roll ore a policy overnight nationwide and here in the u.s. we need go through congress, senate and debate. >> right. >> you know, i have to say for chinese livin

constitutional law professors, including conservatives and libertarians from our nation leading law schools, including yale and chicago, shined a statement -- signed a statement affirming that accounts that a -- statement affirming that an assault weapons ban is constitutional. i went to acknowledge the long- standing support of the man who presented the ban in the house of representatives. the distinguished senator from new york, i want to point out that senator durbin's support and the committee was really strong and appreciated. i want to thank virtually all of the other cosponsors in this room. i want to just point out, that i carefully watched senator delve in fall -- lumen fall, excuse me. -- bloomenthal, excuse me. and senator murphy, too. his representation of that deeply affected community and connecticut. i want you to know, i have my deepest respect that goes to you for what has been a very hard venture. i'm particularly grateful for your support of this legislation. what does this legislation do? it bans a specific assault weapons by name, 157. it protects the rights of gun owners to possess we

professors, including conservatives and libertarians from our nation's leading law schools, including harvard, stanford, yale, and chicago signed a statement confirming that an assault weapons ban is constitutional. i particularly want to thank the cosponsors on this committee. i want to acknowledge the long-standing support of the man who presented the ban in the house of representatives over 10 years ago, the distinguished senator from new york. i want to point out that senator durbin supports, and the committee was really strong and appreciated. i want to thank virtually all of the other cosponsors in this room. i want to just point out that i carefully watched senator blumenthal. i saw his care. i saw his -- and senator murphy, too. his representation of that deeply affected community in connecticut. and i just want you to know, i have, my deepest respect goes to you for what has been a very hard venture. and i'm particularly grateful for your support of this legislation. now, what does this legislation do? it bans pacific assault weapons by name, 157 in this instance. it protects the rights of gun owner

professors, including conservatives and libertarians from our nation's leading law schools, including harvard, stanford, yale, and chicago signed a statement confirming that an assault weapons ban is constitutional. i particularly want to thank the co-sponsors on this committee. i want to acknowledge the long- standing support of the man who presented the ban in the house of representatives over 10 years ago. the distinguished senator from new york. i want to point out that senator durbin's support in the committee was really strong and appreciated. and i want to thank virtually all of the other co-sponsors in this room. i want to just point out that i carefully watched senator blumenthal. i saw his care. i saw his -- and senator murphy, too, his representation of that deeply affected community in connecticut and i just want you to know i have deepest respect goes to you for what has been a very hard venture. i'm particularly grateful for your support of this legislation. now, what does this legislation do? it bans specific assault weapons by name. 157 in this instance. it protects the rights of gun owners t

professors, including conservatives and libertarians from our nation's leading law schools, including harvard, stanford, yale, and chicago signed a statement confirming that an assault weapons ban is constitutional. i particularly want to thank the co-sponsors on this committee. i want to acknowledge the long-standing support of the man who presented the ban in the house of representatives over 10 years ago. the distinguished senator from new york. i want to point out that senator durbin's support in the committee was really strong and appreciated. and i want to thank virtually all of the other co-sponsors in this room. i want to just point out that i carefully watched senator blumenthal. i saw his care. i saw his -- and senator murphy, too, his representation of that deeply affected community in connecticut and i just want you to know i have deepest respect goes to you for what has been a very hard venture. i'm particularly grateful for your support of this legislation. now, what does this legislation do? it bans specific assault weapons by name. 157 in this instance. it protects the rights of gun owners to