it is denied to-one and goes to the supreme court. -- 2-1 and goes to the supreme court. it is a very different case. it will be interesting to see how the court response to these theories. challengeeach -- the is district 6 in maryland, a district for many years apublican-controlled, elected congressman named ross bartlett. in 2011, the democrats being in control of mallon, decided in their wisdom to take some of the control of-- maryland, decided in their wisdom to take some of the rural area out. you ended up a delegation from maryland that was seven democrats and one republican. the argument they are making is not that the 7-1 is unconstitutional. that the change of a republican district to a democratic district in the circumstances of this case was a violation of the first amendment rights of the republican voters in that district. the claim is that the state acted with specific intent to retaliate against them because of their decision to exercise their rights to vote for republicans in the past and the retaliation took the form of change in the districts those peopl

the ability of the supreme court to deal with new deal legislation. these are questions that in the fullness of time, most legal historians come to the view that supreme court justices and court of appeal justices, while we may have many strength, we really judges whoto have are appointed for good behavior. in the modern world, that means life. toon't have the strength abide by those current police, you are stuck with us. the question is, do you really want to have unelected judges making those decisions? a political about view but, president eisenhower's said heer -- eisenhower mentioned brown. for good, when he was governor and california, it was earl warren who facilitated the locking up of japanese-american citizens in concentration camps to advance his political career, big number for the bi's presidency. we all know how that worked out. , i lovecaution people , there institutionally position to make these decisions. wanten say to people, you to give judges that power, the is on the side of the judges. .aybe you don't want to do that maybe the ans

the u.s. supreme court. >> and she dissented. stice scalia was one of the architects of the majority decision saying, having george bush become the president and ruth ginsburg wrote one of several -- i think our number in that case, but one of the dissenters in the case. amy: and this issue of ruth bader ginsburg being the the center. young people who are following her now, that is all they would think about. but that actually wasn't always the case. you are really interesting sort of image that you have in the you show her right in the center there, much closer to the conservatives, and then how she moves to the left. betsy west? >> as one of our interviewees said, she was never meant to be a great dissenter. consensus.won a and she still wants consensus. she has a very practical view of the law. she is always trying to bring people over to her side. it is a very -- it is very important to her that she had collegial relationships with her fellow justices, and that she makes reasoned arguments. she is not a bomb thrower. however,

the u.s. supreme court. a negative decision could reverse a 40-year unanimous precedent supporting states' rights. i want to say, i believe in the power of unions. it allows employees a voice when some of them feel that they have been silenced and can't speak and ask for increased wages or safe working environments, for fear of retaliation, the unions speak. the united states are their voices and they demand fair and reasonable working conditions. we saw that power in 1970 during the postal workers' strike. workers had had enough. as mr. scott from virginia mentioned earlier, the power from the sanitation strike, workers were willing to sacrifice their lines. a pastor, a good friend of mine, he made a phone call to a man he met 10 years earlier. jim lawson got out of prison for refusing to go to korea. he met martin luther king and both ended up in india studying under ghandi. d he realized he started the southern christian leadership conference and he said will you come to memphis. he said we need you to hel

of the uk supreme court. does the british judicial system need a 21st century reboot?uberger, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. i dare say that makes it easier for you to speak in public. distant from the public they serve? i think, i can say many things about. impartial both in court and out of court. society is going. into the law and very senior positions in the law. hugely important matters? to claim that i am perfect. and yes, you are right. by our background and more confident about the world we know. have had the experience of. and its reputation reaching around the world. but it is quite a secretive and closed institutional framework. is that something that needs to be addressed? that is being addressed. you are entirely right. like a priesthood almost shunned away from society. and explain to people what they do and why they do it. the parole board of the uk. of eight years. than eight years. to that decision. is that day and age the wrong attitude? has acted in accordance with its duties. that's true as far as i know. which is very dangerous. be applied to the

the curtilage, and the court stopped there. this court stopped there, but of course it was affirming the florida supreme court, which had thrown out the search for lack of a warrant based on the protection of the curtilage. >> counsel, we permit the police to seize items in plain view in a home. they get a search warrant for the home. they see an item that they have probable cause to believe is incriminating evidence. they can seize it. justice breyer said exigent circumstances kmerpermit the po to seize items. i think the assumption, or not the assumption, the premise of all of those cases is that the police are there legitimately. if you have a warrant, you are permitted to be there. in jardeans, you could -- couldn't seize the incriminating evidence wafting from the house because you didn't have a right to be in the curtilage. and so isn't there a difference when you are in the street, as these police officers were, they have a right to be on the street, they have a right to look at whatever is visible, and they could see the motorcycle from there, so is this a plain view case? is this an exigent circumstance case? that's wh

the supreme court of the united states as well as the supreme court of elyria. into the new situation of law. everybody thought the issues solved and resolved and the law of the land was. is that right, where are we today? >> i think we are halfway through. it was only 2003 that the supreme court outlawed sodomy prohibition. a little more than a decade where we have gone from that to same-sex marriage. every territory in the united states you can get married if you are gay or lesbian. but at the same time, we don't have employment protections. only about half of the states have employment protection. we have challenges to that, like the recent case that the supreme court heard about the baker in colorado who refused to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. so we are halfway through this development. the law has caught up in some places, provides for a protections, but even just today the supreme court refused to hear the evans case on sexual orientation and whether the 11th circuit sexual discrimination protects people. we are seeing circuit split their wh

court which the rules allow someone to try, but, in fact, the supreme court rarely grants this. they want to wait for the appeals court to rule before they take the case almost owls. in the last century i counted about a dozen times where the supreme court allowed someone to do this to go directly to the supreme court from a district court opinion and those cases involve things like the steel strike or coal strike or some national emergency. the legal argument about president nixon's tapes during the watergate scandal. so it's not impossible. it rarely happens but lightning could strike. what will happen next is the challengers who prevailed in the lower court will respond. they've got 30 days and the government has ten more days. so we're not going to hear anything out of the supreme court for at least well over a month. meantime, the original deadline on which daca was supposed to expire, march 5th, will have passed. and the lower court ruling remains in effect. blocking the government from stopping daca. now interestingly, david, the trump administra

the court was ready to do that in large part because thurgood marshall had made the court ready to do that. the supremeld not have decided brown v board on its own in a vacuum. this court decided brown v board because lawyers, led by thurgood marshall, and i mean really led by thurgood marshall, brought cases to the court, which finally made the court understand that this was their constitutional duty. kim crenshaw: they had their own plan, their own architecture, their own aspiration about how they were trying to renovate american society and they managed to do it. justice kagan: the moment brown was decided, segregation in every aspect of american life - the writing was on the wall and the days were numbered. kim crenshaw: that is, i think, the most profound story in american law in the 20th century. justice kagan: i don't know of a legal accomplishment in this country that's greater. thurgood marshall: after all these years the struggle is far from over. society continues to hold out unfilled promises and unrealized aspirations. the incongruity of slavery in a nation conceived in liberty and dedicat

so the supreme court has to deal with that. this is very important. ns need to understand it because it does go to the heart of our core democracy. >> thanks to both of you. >>> we have some breaking news right now. i.c.e. agents showed up early this morning at dozens of 7-eleven stores in what was the largest operation targeting an employer since president trump took office. nbc's justice correspondent pete williams is standing by. pete, what more do we know? all right. we just lost pete williams. we will try to get him back here. let's take a quick break. in the next few minutes, president trump will be greeting the prime minister of norway at the white house. we will be watching for that and the joint press conference the two will hold this afternoon. so that's the idea. what do you think? i don't like it. oh. nuh uh. yeah. ahhhhh. mm-mm. oh. yeah. ah. agh. d-d-d... no. hmmm. uh... huh. yeah. uh... huh. in business, there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you. so we're doing it. yes. start saying yes to your company's best ideas.

particularly the supreme court. think the robert for curing with sort of a a watershed heag as far as that goes -- robert bork hearing -- it has become very partisan, the party of the president, the senators tend to ask very favorable question any opposition party tends to be a bit hostile. either way the matter whether it's republican or democratic, it works either way. that's unfortunate. i think it's gotten, i think probing is useful but i think there's a line between legitimate probing and excessive pushing. i think with supreme court hearing, historically there were no hearings. the first hearing was way back, i think 20, stone might've had a brief hearing. frankfurter came in 1939, showed up, wasn't asked a single question. potter stewart i think was the first to be seriously asked counsel is a modern development but its uses day, at least at the supreme court level. court of appeal hearings are usually non-events, non-newsworthy events the supreme court hearing is very contentious as you know. you are a membe

and that the supreme court of the united states would uphold that. clearly, under our constitution, the congress writes the laws and the president executes them and implements them and upholds them. we're confident the court would do that. honestly, the leadership president trump is providing on this issue is making it possible for us to move forward on priorities that the president's expressed since the days of the campaign. look, the american people want us to build a wall. they want border security. they want to end the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. all illicit drugs that are tearing apart families and communities across this country. they also in the wake of those terrorist attacks in this country recently, they want us to end the visa lottery program. they want us to reform and end chain migration in this country. ultimately, i think the american people also want us to feel compassionately with the issue of daca. what the american people saw yesterday is what i see every day in one meeting after another is president trump bringin

republicans are vowing to appeal the decision to the supreme court. urt is already facing two other challenges on jerry mannedering dealing with state legislature voting maps in wisconsin and maryland but this case is the first time a federal court blocked a congressional app because of partisan favoritism. in 2016, republicans openly stated the new map was drawn to their advantage. that's a practice that both parties have been doing in one form or another for generations. so this ruling also has the potential to set a legal precedent for that being done in other states as well. adding to this, if state lawmakers don't come up with a new redistricting plan, the court said it will redraw the map itself. that is sure to face legal challenge. republicans argue it is a legislative duty in north carolina and not up to the court to decide how lawmakers should go about doing it. dana? >> dana: interesting. david bossy is the co-author of the best seller "let trump be trump." you know the supreme court pretty well. you follow it. what do you think could happen

history of the book is explained when we finally got to the issue, the judge was a court of appeals judge and assigned the opinion. the supremecourt has given some protection to the privacy. they've done that and the contraceptive case in the years before and this is before roe v. wade. i thought they were protecting the marital privacy, and i thought that meant in the early stages it protected the right of a woman to make her own decisions about reproduction. it would change after the fetus became viable because at that point, you have a fetus can survive outside of the womb and i suggested the viability might be the line that might separate the impermissible state regulation of the state regulations. and i put them in the opinion. to my astonishment i found years later when they would be available to the public he reported my opinion and recommended & i think the viability of the key point is a strong argument and found its way into the opinion. i have no illusion that i have an effect but judging from the papers so they paid some attention to it. here is a fabulous book and printed the letter. i would add is a historical f

soon you will join in a march to the supreme court to promote the message that love saves lives and today, invite you to engage in another momentous opportunity to defend and protect life. this spring we will once again stand before the supreme court along with our allies, the national institute of family and life advocates also to represent its network of 135 pro-life pregnancy centers in california. these centers empower women to choose life by providing love and support often in the form of medical assistance, prenatal vitamins and baby clothing just to name a few but pregnancy centers in california are being forced by the government to advertise and promote abortions to the vulnerable women in their care. this lot written by abortion groups is an attack on the first amendment, pregnancy centers exist to encourage expectant mothers to give their children the opportunities for life. that is why alliance defending freedom will be arguing on behalf of pro-life pregnancy centers in california and more than 1400 others nationwide because life deserves a voice and because love saves lives. t

the courts matter and i think that the courts matter for all americans. they play an incredibly important role in american life. there tends to be able to focus on the united supreme court that the reality is there's just a few cases that get hurt an heard resolved by the supreme court. there are tens of thousands of cases that move through the federal district and circuit courts that touch every aspect of our lives and i think that historically we have seen the president respect the integrity of the courts and sometimes they invite and debate nominees who sometimes are polarizing that historically we've seen presidents but with nominees who can garner some degree of bipartisan support and that hasn't been the case with president trump's nominees, and i think that is because he has been so focused on putting forth radical ideologues who call far from outside th of the mainstre. there are people of low caliber we saw with matthew peterson and he's been relentless in putting forth young white men for vacancies that exist across the federal court and i think that is a shame. white men make up about 31% of the u.s. population but have represented the lion's share more

the supreme court saying they will be taking up arguments on this. he meantime, it is in effect. in fact, brooke, just last summer that the supreme court ruled on one of the previous travel bans, saying that it could go into effect, in part, at least the people with bona fide relationships to the united states and people here, those people could come. the rest were restricted. it remains to be seen what the supreme court will issue on this latest ban, version 3.0, but they will, in fact, hear arguments in the coming term. brooke? >> jessica, thank you. >>> let's get to this explosive new report claiming the president's personal lawyer used a fake name and a private company to pay hush money to a porn star to keep quiet. to keep quiet about her alleged affair with then private citizen, businessman donald trump. weeks before the presidential election in 2016, wall street journal reports the actress, who calls herself stormy daniels, was paid $130,000 as part of this nondisclosure agreement concerning her relationship, relationship with donald trump. the

listen with the free c-span radio app and you can follow the court's upcoming schedule of oral arguments at c-span.org/supreme court. you can search all the judges'appearances on c-span and with c-span.org/supreme court you can watch all the oral arguments we have

the supreme court will challenge the validity of it. the rights to privacy, a fundamental constitutional rights in india. they are also challenging the way biometric data is collected and the use of it by government agencies. there are pros and cons, but when will the supreme court make a decision? if it is scrapped, what will happen next? well, the supreme court is only resuming hearings today. there have been a lot of protests. there are many concerns around digital privacy and surveillance, as i mentioned. and also around privacy. so, the problem is that it is being used and is being linked to many bank accounts and phone numbers, but people are saying it is voluntary, why should we have to do it if it is not required? thank you so much for updating us. joining us from mumbai. mcdonald's. they say all packaging worldwide will come from sustainable sources and sources by 2025. they wa nt sources and sources by 2025. they want all items like bags and cuts to come from recycled or renewable materials. so, what is behind this new green g

that is because the supreme court at the time was a conservative libertarian majority supreme court. kfurter objected to the way that supreme court was blocking progressive legislation. he developed the idea of restraint to try to block them. years, roosevelt managed to appoint a majority of them to the court. frankfurter believed they should still exercise restraint. they came to see him as a judicial conservative, having come to the bench as a liberal. ultimately, he ended his career being seen as very conservative and dissenting from some of the great liberal judgments. there were exceptions, he was an active majority in the brown versus the board of education case. he was prepared to be an activist. he is left with academics and people like me who value the fact that he was committed to what i would like to think of as objective as he could be in terms of the values he took. no one is a objective. we are all human. he tried to stick with the philosophy that he believed was true and he was perceived as a liberal. he never gave that up. that is a great model, to hold the professorsh

there's no legal basis in try to go to the supreme court. the supreme court will knock you down politically. it will be ugly for the president. he has to do the interview. >> sean: but there's a precedent for restrictions. there's a press -- precedent for the topics. >> the bill clinton case. >> sean: it can't be open-ended. it's impossible. >> limit the scope of the scope. by the way, from the president's point of view it's simple. i didn't work with russians or include in terms of obstruction of justice i'm allowed to fire people in the executive branch. >> sean: gregg, sara, congressman. the president is making major headlines tonight declaring there's no evidence of collusion and he'd do that sit down under oath, with the special counsel. again, let me play this for you and we'll get reaction. >> i'm looking forward to it actually. there's been no collusion whatsoever. there's no obstruction whatsoever. and i'm looking forward to it. i'd love to do it. again, i have to say, it's subject to my lawyers and all of that. >> sean: and he's rea

if they are drawn to a the whole population of people and currently they are going to go to the supreme court case and decide if they are illegal so that is the big case right now. >> voices from the state on c-span. >>> next, the supreme court oral argument in the district of columbia. the case revolves around the fourth amendment and probable cause arrests. he was one of several people initially arrested after attending a party thrown by someone else in a vacant house in washington, d.c.. mr. wesby filed an unlawful arrest suit. this is just under an hour. we hear arguments this morning in case 15, 1485 district of columbia versus wesby. >> mr. chief justice may i please the court. a probable cause is a practical standard and not accounts for the practical limitations officers face when

it will be that or there's three ways out of the supreme court. and those folks that were there 100 years ago aren't there now. so we know there's going to be a change in the court. what we don't know is this court may well uphold heart beat because it's more precisely written and more carefully drafted and it answers the right kind of questions. i think it has a better chance of being upheld before the supreme court than pain-capable. but those who pushed pain-capable, 20-week, didn't have those reservations on their bill. but they seem to wonder about this one and say, we shouldn't move heart beat until we have another appointment to the supreme court. how can you let that happen? well, if perhaps the window closes in the house or the senate or the presidency. sitting here twiddling our thumbs and watching babies be aborted at a rate of, oh, and by the way, i did get this piece from national right to life. and the conversation just yesterday. that when they began this effort , there were as many as six million abortions a year in america. i hadn'

the calculation they are not going to win in the 9th circuit, so their best chance is before the supreme courthat about timeline, pete, when do we expect to hear anything? >> you know, the nice thing about the supreme court is it does it whenever it wants to, so as a practical matter we've got to wait for the challengers to respond. they get a certain amount of time, usually 15 to 30 -- i can't remember, i think it's 30 days, and then the government can reply to that. so we're looking at -- i don't think we're going to get immediate supreme court action here, because they didn't ask for a stay. they said there's no great rush, but we want to get this over with, because they say, look, if you don't take this case, it's going to be almost a year before we get through the process with the lower courts and come back to the supreme court, so we might as well do it now. >> yeah. >> but in terms of the immediate timing, it's going to be at least, i would guess, at least a month before we hear. >> nbc's pete williams there, thank you very much. i want to head back over to the white house briefing room

matter of the book as i mentioned to me to her late father who was a legendary figure one of the top supreme court advocates and the kind of father of the modern supreme court bar is there an influence from him in this book? >> guest: without question. we talked about things like federalism. it certainly made for an interesting dinner conversation. my dad used to say there are two structural protections that are as important as any other feature. one is vertical and the other is horizontal and we call that separation of power. it prevents any one group of people from getting too much cover and abusing thospower ande government. >> host: tell everybody what federalism and how they are different. >> guest: it organizes the balance of power on the one hand and the states or people on the other. it sets up the default princip principal. a default proposition that most congress will be at the state and local level and they are invested in congress so it articulates those enumerated powers that are federal most are found in section one of the constitution and some are not reasonably linked to that accom

members of congress and the supreme court. and the supreme court. seen the president's wife, melaniantributorjay newton small. welcome to you both. good evening. hello. thank you for being with us. let us start with you, you worked in the administration of george w bush. the administration of george w bush. inside the white house on state of the union night. the union night. this is donald trump's first state of the union. trump's first state of the union. what will it be like for him and what is the need to do tonight? what is the need to do tonight?

the lower courts. normally the supreme court doesn't do that. the times it does it are exceptionally rare. obviously the justice department thinks they have at least four, maybe five votes to do it. >> well, we'll be watching, pete, thank you so much. >> you bet. >>> all right, coming up, new details about president trump's personal attorney reportedly paying an adult film star, that's a porn star if you're not familiar with what i'm talking about, to hide an affair the president had while he was married. s or no? do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts? $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists? did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online. ♪ keep it comin' love. if you keep on eating, we'll keep it comin'. all you can eat riblets and tenders at

that is how the newspapers got involved in the case at the district court level. court to the supreme within 12 days. case ont decided to june 30, 1971. it took only days from the time it was filed to when it was decided by the supreme court. host: talk about the decision to allow "the washington post" to publish the papers even though they were classified at the time. what impact does that have today in washington? historic. case was the decision was a landmark decision because the supreme court imposed on the government a heavy burden if it ever wanted to secure a prior restraint against newspapers. it did not define with details what a heavy burden was, but it was pretty clear it was going to be a really heavy burden. the evidence in this case did not measure up, and that is why the court ruled against the government. significance, the one can only imagine what a newspaper would look like if the government had actually won the case because then the government would be in a position to censor newspapers every time they published classified materials. if you are an average reader of

that is how the newspapers got involved in the case at the district court level. court to the supreme within 12 days. case ont decided to june 30, 1971. it took only days from the time it was filed to when it was decided by the supreme court. host: talk about the decision to allow "the washington post" to publish the papers even though they were classified at the time. what impact does that have today in washington? historic. case was the decision was a landmark decision because the supreme court imposed on the government a heavy burden if it ever wanted to secure a prior restraint against newspapers. it did not define with details what a heavy burden was, but it was pretty clear it was going to be a really heavy burden. the evidence in this case did not measure up, and that is why the court ruled against the government. significance, the one can only imagine what a newspaper would look like if the government had actually won the case because then the government would be in a position to censor newspapers every time they published classified materials. if you are an average reader of

he served as the governor of new from 1907-1910 and was named to the supreme court by william howard taft. the that term, he took nomination for president and narrowly lost the electoral wilson.to california.votes in 1921, warren harding named hu and ae secretary of state entered government service again justicehoice for chief of the supreme court. twice, the went and served the court and he had a remarkable career. speechcussion is about a when he did not before theic office united states entered into the first world war. the professor you will meet in a from theearthed hughses of columbia -- -- a speechus and contemporaneous notes about that speech. there are very few things that have continued significant resonance. the topic of this speech is the as the power war to wage war successfully. that is pretty powerful and the theral insight was that president and the commander-in-chief are trusted to sendense power citizens outside of the country to fight and to do whatever is necessary to win a war and the in theo wage war echoes ongoing legal debate of presidential war powers during a

i remember going to the supreme court remembering how proud we were. there, through coalitions of the usses. any minority on their own is vulnerable. you would hear the chanting, black, white, same fight. but i did not see many lgbt people showing up viisibly at those rallies. we are losing the people that got harvey elected and got us where we are. from the passion i am hearing in your voice, we clearly have to keep fighting. i wonder if you still have to keep the filmmaking on hold to continue this political fight. you know, i am doing some filmmaking addressing it, like when we rise. it was billed as a reminder and warning, saying if we lose sight of our brothers and sisters and other movements, we are vulnerable. that is why it is called when we rise, not when lgbt rises. it comes from the black movement, the women's movement, and something called peace movement from the 70s which we seem to have forgotten about. i was writing this as a warning to get back to coalitions so we would not be defeated and the pendulum of progress would keep going forwa

>> i believe that the appellate courts, the supreme court will find what the district court did. and that is that the actions of this administration went beyond the law. so i'm gaining confidence every day that our litigation, our lawsuit to protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers will prevail. >> do you think democrats should continue to press for a clean bipartisan bill to give d.r.e.a.m.ers a path to citizenship without any attachments to things like funding for a border wall or cracking down on the visa lottery program? how productive is that effort, though, given that congress is currently controlled by republicans? >> forgive me. i'm going to give you an answer that some democrats may not like. i don't understand why democrats continue to act like they have to bail out republicans for doing these crazy things. republicans just passed a tax break bill that gives the wealthiest americans and corporations $1.8 trillion worth of tax breaks. now republicans are claiming that they have to cut services and programs for veterans, for school kids, for elderly because there's no money. why would d

i remember going to the supreme court remembering how proud we were. there, through coalitions of the usses. any minority on their own is vulnerable. you would hear the chanting, black, white, same fight. but i did not see many lgbt people showing up viisibly at those rallies. we are losing the people that got harvey elected and got us where we are. from the passion i am hearing in your voice, we clearly have to keep fighting. i wonder if you still have to keep the filmmaking on hold to continue this political fight. you know, i am doing some filmmaking addressing it, like when we rise. it was billed as a reminder and warning, saying if we lose sight of our brothers and sisters and other movements, we are vulnerable. that is why it is called when we rise, not when lgbt rises. it comes from the black movement, the women's movement, and something called peace movement from the 70s which we seem to have forgotten about. i was writing this as a warning to get back to coalitions so we would not be defeated and the pendulum of progress would keep going forwa

for example, justice gorsuch who was elevated to the supreme court last year has previously served on the 10th circuit court of appeals. we have a president who regularly denigrates the judiciary and individual judges and we have a senate majority leader and judiciary committee chair that are rushing their consideration of this president's nominees. right now, there are more than 150 current and known future vacancies on our federal courts which represents nearly 20% of the federal judiciary. this is, unfortunately, by design. after the senate majority took the disgraceful step of holding open the supreme court seat that president obama nominated chief judge marrick garland for, they kept open lower court vacancies in hopes they could confirm nominees they were confident in to fulfill their agenda. recently, there have been proposals on calling on congress to dramatically expand the number of lifetime judgeships so this administration could even fill more of them to, quote, reverse the judicial legacy of president obama. the white house and senate majority have been aggressive in fulf

that will be on its way to the supreme court soon. if that were upheld, they would have to take down veterans memorial's all over the country. the court of appeals covers arlington national cemetery. they would have to go into arlington and tear down the large crosses. >> shannon: every headstone has some religious symbol on it. not just crosses. >> the large crosses would be on the list but coach joe kennedy, the coach was fired for going to a knee after a game by himself and saying a prayer, president trump tweeted about that twice saying this shouldn't happen in our country. the baker case, there is a en banc on friday. you have two courts of appeals going the opposite way whether county commissioners can pray to open their meetings. 2018 is going to be a huge religious freedom here. >> shannon: you see these cases, others within the military. rights of servicemen and women. to the point about the baker case, a lot of people get stuck there because they say how can you come down on the side of being against lgbt rights. they were de

the white house and senate majority have been aggressive to stop the courts. confirming 23 lifetime judicial appointments one to the supreme court and 12 to the circuit court of appeals. president obama first year, the senate confirmed 13 -- 3 to the circuit courts. this administration has been aggressive in naming nominees without consultation from senators, they have been embarrassed by some of the symptoms of their rushed process having to reconsider moving forward, for example with three incredibly troubling nominees sh, the concerning trends we have seen remain in some others. nominees for example, who lack legal experience. lack experience in the jurisdiction which they are nominated. come from strong ideological backgrounds, deeply troubling anonymous statements, they might not have received -- from the aba and not fully forthcoming in the senate judiciary questionnaire or hearing. many senators have tried to be a check and -- provide advice and consent by withholding their blue slips that signal to the committee chair that the senators from the state or that nominee would serve are supportive of that nomination. th

why the supreme court has construed the first amendment to prohibit the banning of hate speech on campus. f: the supreme court has taken the position that, it in the realm of restrictions on speech, the most problematic are those that for bid the expression of a particular point of view. for the government to decide that certain viewpoints is impermissible, that puts such a serious intrusion into the marketplace of ideas and the ability of individuals to express their own positions into the capacity of people debate openly and fearlessly with one another that restrictions on the ability to convey a particular point of view are basically per , unlessstitutional perhaps they create a clear and present danger of truly great harm in the immediate. that is a general proposition that the court has stated. context, case in other the application of the general principle applies as well to public discourse at public universities. therefore, in the same way that a public university cannot for bid speech today that advocates communism or advocates gay-rights or opposes abortion, it cannot restrict

. >> this week, the supreme court heard the argument of voting rights. r the argument tonight on c-span, online at www.c-span.org , or listen with the free c-span radio app. can follow the upcoming schedule. the schedule this term and all the current justices. and with video on demand, you can watch all the oral arguments we have aired at www.c-span.org /supremecourt. >> president trump sign a proclamation honoring dr. martin luther king jr. had of monday's federal holiday. he did not respond to questions about his comments yesterday on haiti and african countries. this is about 15 minutes. president trump: good morning, everybody. thank you very much. carsonto thank secretary jr. forith mr. farris joining us today. earlier this week i had a privilege to join isaac and others to sign into law legislation redesignating the martin luther king jr. national to the martin luther king jr. national historic park. the new law expands the area protected, and historic sites for the future, generations of americans are becoming so important, and this is a great hon