the united states supreme court, the fourth circuit court of appeals and the north carolina appellate courts have all held where officers are attempting to make an arrest, deadly force may be used if it appears to be reasonably necessary to, first, protect against deadly force, that the arrestee is use to go resist arrest or, two, to take into custody a person who presents an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others unless apprehended immediately. the north carolina general assembly has codified this case law in our general statutes, which i have attached to the press package. the united states supreme court has cautioned prosecutors may not employ the 2020 vision of hindsight but must make allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgment in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. the law authorizes an officer to take preemptive action and use deadly force to prevent death or serious injury to himself or herself. whenever officers use deadly force to defend themselves or to stop a dangerous fleeing felon the

that's that's a united states supreme court case, and it is clear. in the plumoff case the officers fired three shots into a stationary vehicle. the vehicle then backed away from officers and sped down the street at which time they fired 12 additional shots at the vehicle as it sped away, and there were no police officers anywhere in the direct path of that vehicle. supreme court found the officers' actions in that case were reasonable, they said they weren't even close to being unreasonable, and they did not find even a fourth amendment violation. there has never, ever, in our american jurisprudence, the supreme court has never found a fourth amendment violation when a suspect uses a car as a deadly weapon, never, not one. hold on, wait a minute, one more time in the back, yes. >> is the car being used as a deadly weapon no matter how fast it was going, just because it was moving in the direction of the officers at some point? it doesn't matter whether it was accelerating, just foot off the gas? >> yes, in my opinion, at this point it was employed a

but our state supreme court ruled, the united states supreme court refused to step in, those ballots were legal, but ultimately, they were not material in terms of the overall vote total, the vote difference between donald trump and joe biden. janet: yeah. yeah. we've been talking a bit about the amount of disinformation that was floating around, but i think it's fair to say that emotions were running higher and higher, as we got to the election and in the immediate aftermath of the election. what was that like? were any of you ever the subject of potential violence, or threat of violence? jocelyn, i think they came to your house, didn't they? jocelyn: yeah, and it was actually secretary hobbs, i remember, was the first that i recall making a statement about the threats, and it was really something that we all experienced in varying ways, but of course, in michigan, it really began in the spring when we had armed protesters descend on our state capitol building with, you know, machine guns and the like, and ak-47s, you know, in the legislative chamber. so we'd been in this heightened

it was raised with the united states supreme court. i don't know what happened to look like three justices wanted to take it up and the other six did notit u that a legitimate challenge brought to the united states supreme court to be resolved with election cases ultimately is not even the supreme court. the united states congress that resolves under the constitutional system. the idea that you raise it then they claim you cited in insurrection from a party that beat the president twice and sought to remove him from office, glad you had an opportunity to speak to that. now we will talk about your book which is fabulous. the tyranny of big tech. you begin by saying. conservatives, sewe didn't like monopolies from the industrial revolution and mission at lake them now. because they smother liberty and individuality. explain what you mean. >> our framers had it right. look back to the founders they hated monopoly. they were deeply suspicious and associated with aristocracy. if you have concentratedu power that means the self-appointed expe

the question i have is, are you criticizing the united states supreme court to much? are you saying we have this incredible polarization over abortion and you really point the finger at the supreme court. when i was reading i was thinking there are other actors could he point the finger at other places as well? maybe they were more important but unpack your discussion of abortion, the supreme court of the united states and courts abroad. >> i will start by saying this is a chapter in the book and it's a complicated story. whatever you get out of my synopsis, i encourage you to pick up the book and read chapter five for a deeper dive. i do think the court's decision with roe v wade and how it style this decision contributes to a rupture in abortion politics in the us. there are lots of other things that contribute, so yes i agree there are other actors involved there's a lot of opportunism happening in the seventies around this issue. but the chapter compares what's happening in the us to germany at the same time. abortion was a more controversial issue in germany than

mark: let's swing into another issue united states supreme court -- iou had never seen such a brazenab in my lifetime. i know fdr tried but own vice president party stopped him. here we have the democrats in congress now they want to add four seats the united states supreme court they want to create theirth own ideological bureau if you will. they're going destroy the public's confidence in the judicial system they're going to destroy separation of power. you. know, newt these radical democrats now -- they don't want to play inside the constitutional box. they don't accept the norms of governing sometimes you win sometime useti lose sometime use work withrk other party and such they want to destroy the other party. they wanted to destroy any opposition. they want to shut down free speech. they want to change the demographics inn this country. this is quite, quite serious. i think you're the historian i don't think we've ever seen anything like this. >> no i think you have to go back to french revolution or to reformation you have people basically -- have created a secular religion. t

it was struck down by the united states supreme court. eve that we have a good piece of legislation that protects the accessibility to the polling play for every voter. it basically is fair and it secures the vote. >> professor, what do you make of that idea? >> well, you know, joe manchin is the 50th vote among democrats, and not only would he have to agree to support whatever legislation he thinks is worth while on voting rights, he would have to agree to get around the filibuster. i'm not sure how serious it is because he said he's not willing to get around the filibuster, and there are not going to be ten republican senators who would agree to extend preclearance nationwide. it is also not clear extending preclearance nationwide would necessarily solve the constitutional problem that the supreme court recognized in the 2013 shelby counter voting act. i don't know if it is a serious proposal. when joe manchin is ready to come up to the table and come up with laws that would put a brake on some of the more repressive laws. i don't know i

. >> united states supreme court has said that's states have no constitutional right to secede. join us from rushy. joining the recall election. >> i could just point out the supreme court didn't say that. she said this a state can secede with the consent of the states. as governor i will reach out to the other states, we need a majority of them to get the consent of the other states, declare california independent and move forward. >> we will get the constitutional lawyers to join us next someli bigodaliste about to join us. they were both born in san jose and went to santa clara university which just won a national championship. they will be joining us live next taking a short break on the air i am robert strickler. i've been involved in communications in thme i've been taking prevagen on a regular basis for at least eight years. for me, the greatest benefit over the years has been that prevagen seems to help me recall things and also think more clearly. and i enthusiastically recommend prevagen. it has helped me an awful lot. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. thclara un

when the stories of we the people become cases before the united states supreme court, and when these courses result in the opinions of the court, history turns. the ways in which we think about and live under the constitution are reflected in the courts interpretations and both their historical context and their legacies. some cases and the courts opinions in them so profoundly alter our constitutional understandings, that they can only rightly be called, landmark cases. markers of where we have traveled as a nation. as a part of an initiative begun in 2015, the national constitution center partnered with c-span to create a 12 part series illustrating the history, issues and people involved in monumental landmark cases. through the resulting online videos and other classroom resources available at landmark cases thought c-span dot org, students and educators can carefully analyze some of the most famous and infamous cases. last year, we continue this initiative through a series of town hall discussions, and depth articles on our constitution daily blog and the publication of the 2017

we don't have expansion of the supreme court of united states and so the connection is not difficultto make an effective intuitive and they think and i say we generally to should do a better job of messaging that to people. it should not take the supreme court overturning or roe v. wade to get people to finally understand what this court now has the votes to do. we should be rallying support around court expansion well before then and i would say we just can't do it quickly enough so that's why we have to introduce this legislation and make sure that we are not fighting with ourselves over something we know to be necessary. >> congressman imagine i'm a disaffected voters sitting at my house watching them talk about the courts and i'm mike whatever. what do you say to get me to sit up and say whoa i didn't know that. how do you get that connection and would you say to someone in a regular conversation or do you ask a talk about it for fun? >> i do talk about it for fun. it's my job now but i would ask about your life and why are you disaffected by fewer disaffected because government

the eeoc takes its up to or -- to at the supreme court of the united states and a number of you in this audience know this case pretty well. the supreme court of the united states told the obama eeoc and the obama justice department that you have violated your position violates both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, a double whammy. now, i used a beautiful word for lawyer weather lawyer weather think about the supreme court, unanimous. ruth bader ginsburg joined that opinion. sonia sotomayor joined that opinion by chief justice roberts. justice aleast to authored -- just alito authors a mighty concurrent opinion, teaches out this principle of autonomy in a bradder way than the chief justice's opinion did. his opinion was joined by justice elena kagan. 9 are0. why? because the supreme court of the united states and we're talk about almost the current membership are not entirely membership but the recent membership of the supreme court was unanimously in favor of church autonomy in the face of a serious potential violation of civil rights. the violation of the america

obviously, my comments indicate that i'm critical of the supreme court of the united states and the wayit's handled those amendments, but the supreme court of the united states is not the only culprit. the framers of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, they have their own problems. the society that gave us the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments were thoroughly really racist. it should not be surprising that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment should be limited. it would be extraordinary if that were not the case. now to go to your question about the 14th amendment, particularly the second section. the section having to do with voting, a couple of points. one, it is a section of the constitution that gets very little attention. it is hardly mentioned constitutional law classes, i took constitutional law and there's no mention of that section on the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment is a very long one, there are a lot of parts that people in law school don't typically talk about, this is one of them. if your question is, why has -- by the way, what does that portion of the 14th amendment say? i

the civil magistrate trait she was fired in the eeoc takes it all the way up to the supreme court of the united states and a number of you in the audience know this case pretty well. the supreme court of the united states told the obama eeoc of the obama johnson department did you have violated your at position violates the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, a double whammy. i use a beautiful word for lawyers who think about this, unanimous. ruth bader ginsburg joined that opinion. sonya sotomayor joined that opinion with chief justice roberts and justice alito authored a concurring opinion teasing out this principle of autonomy and in a broader sense a broader way than the cheap justices opinion did. and they were joined by justice elena kagan. 9-0 my dear friends. why? because the supreme court of the united states and we are talking about almost the entire membership of the supreme court was unanimously in favor of church autonomy in the face of the serious potential violation of civil rights a violation of the americans with disabilities act. >> i believe justice kagan joins the al

general for the state of maryland and attorney general for the united states and by the 1830's, he becomes chief justice of the united states supreme court. he is a colonizationist and someone who advocates that a former slave cannot live peacebly in the united states and should be removed voluntarily to places like liberia. he is a catholic living in the archdiocese of maryland and i think most important thinking about dred scott, he stopped for many years about the question of free black citizenship, even before we get to 1857, it has beenal question on his mind since the 1820's and 1830's when as attorney general, he had begun to work out his theory about black citizenship, and we know his conclusion that black people cannot be citizens of the united states. >> but give some background to tell it's a bit more about the united states. >> the total population in the 1960's was 31 million plus people and there were about half a million free blacks in the united states. and today, the free blacks live in a certain part of the country? >> free blacks, there were free blacks in the south and the north. a lot of times after emancipatio

and the united states supreme court -- threw them out ruled as misconduct the obama biden justice departmentght that they brought ruth bader ginsburg together. >> they did that to take you out and petraeus, they really targeted the tea party and then you saw -- what they did with president trump's campaign. with spice and informant and wiretaps it is out of control and nobody can stand up to it when you -- got coronavirus, it rocked you, didn't it? now you're stepping up you have a message about vaccines we're on a pretty good pathway with vaccination in this country but it might be plateauing what do you want to the say to the american people about that? >> this disease is random in who it goes after and i was in safest place in the world inside the white house when i caught coronavirus prepping the president's room debate last fall. and it attacked me put me in the icu for seven days i've had two relatives that were completely healthy, who both died from covid in the last three months. and so what we need to remember about these vaccines is -- four times number of people qengt through the

and the plessy versus ferguson for those who do not know was a case of a stake into united states supremecourt to separate but equal. spent okay i want to ask omar question and then maybe we will end fairly soon. i just wondered if you could talk for a minute about music. so many of us associate new orleans with music, with jazz in particular. you write a lot about music in the book. can you talk a little bit about the economy and its relationship to music over time? be too sure pretty few go to the new orleans jazz and heritage festival he will find the economy to based on this particular hall because the economy had music all they threw. they had philip on it, that offer that all these things in the early years in the last incarnation of music in the economy haul is jazz. those same people who used to come together and support each other, build houses, raise the children when they were driven out of jobs white supremacist legislation they played music to make money. one of the places they played music was an economy haul. they would have a party they would raise money with the party the

the states said scholarships can be used for religious institutions in a way to the united states supremeice roberts in a 5-4 decision. at the time justice ginsburg was in the minority. that composition has changed a little bit and they struck it down on free exercise clause. that's one point for the religious institutions and then there's the motivation as to why it was past and was argued about the prejudice. post-civil war these plain amendments were passed. there's a case case in 2020. in louisiana saying we've got to look past the mutual reading and look towards the motivation of the law. that may be a good basis for the equal protection argument. >> shannon: knowing the makeup of the court now, i ask you to give me a guess on how you think it would go down. what do you think? >> i am guessing 6-3. based on justice roberts having been in the majority in previous cases like what david was discussing and the fact that we have seen barrett be open to religious liberty with these covid lawsuits. >> shannon: quick prediction from you, david. >> i agree because of the 5-4 decision and we a

and the ringer prosecutor, would come in particularly handy in the trump case, because the united states supreme court ruled in late february that tons, millions of pages of trump's financial business and tax records would be handed over to those prosecutors. a h! good to have an experienced white collar lawyer, working on running point on that investigation, also good to have the consulting firm, the forensic accounting firm that's great at handling huge amounts of data. because in february they got huge amounts of data on trump and his business interests. and earlier this month, we got this unusual public statement from the attorney general's office in new york saying that part of that office's ongoing civil investigation into trump had been moved off and moved into this prosecutor's office, the same d.a.'s office because that had more from a civil matter into a criminal matter. so we've seen from the initial reporting that trump might face criminal charges from new york state prosecutors, based on the d.a.'s office in manhattan, from that initial reporting going back to the summer of 2018, we

court of appeals, and the united states supreme court. . as a lawyer, arnold was sought after for his knowledge of the will of law. he was listed in each edition of the best lawyers of america and even served on its advisory board. without a doubt, arnold was extremely accomplished lawyer but his passions went beyond the law. for over 30 years, arnold served as a strong and committed member of the memphis-shelby county airport authority. from 1996 to 2012, he was its chairman. through his leadership, arnold played a vital role in making the memphis international airport into one of the top hubs in the world. in working in conjunction with fedex, arnold helped the memphis airport become the world's largest cargo airport. he also facilitated the relocation of the tennessee air national guard headquarter, which helped promote growth for memphis. arnold was chairman of the new arena public building authori where he overyou a -- oversaw the development of the memphis grizzlies and memphis -- development of the home of the memphis grizzlies and m

all eyes on the dramatically altered makeup of the united states supreme court as the court announcedaw. other courts say it is unconstitutional but the majority on the supreme court is made up of three justices picked by an ex-president who explicitly said the qualification is opposition to roe v. wade and viewed as a clear assault on protections for women's freedoms. nancy northrup president of center for repriktive rights saying today alarm bells are ringing loudly about the threat to

scvideo, and we're going to pure this all the way to the michigan supreme court if not the united states supremet now? >> i feel like my constitutional protected t rights have been tan away.ee i feel like governor whitmer and general -- they discriminate me. they don't treat me right. i feel like not citizen. i feel like they treat me like like -- [inaudible] because, as you know, they should protect us and do all the stuff that they should do to every citizen. i don't think so i interfere with anyone rights -- elizabeth: okay, got it. okay, got it. marlena and robert baker, thank you so much for joining us. we really appreciate it. >>> stay right u there, we have >>> stay right u there, we have more show right after the (sfx: branches rustle) it is bear country though. hey boo-boo! we hit the jackpot! bear! bear! bear! look, corn on the cob! oohh chicken! don't mind if i do! they're hungry. t-bone! that's what i call a smorgasbord! at least geico makes bundling our home and car insurance easy. they do save us a ton of money. we'll take the cobbler to go! good idea, yogi. i'm smarter than the av

on which you get supreme court news, because of the memorial day holiday this weekend, the united states supreme court is expected to announce new decisions tomorrow morning. now there aren't that many cases yet that they haven't ruled on for this year's session. one of the cases they haven't ruled on yet is one out of texas. that is an attempt to get rid of a bomber care to kill the affordable and its -- if the supreme court agrees to do that which is what the case is seeking, that would have the effect of throwing tens of millions off their health insurance instantly know we don't know how we're gonna roll on the affordable care act case and we don't know exactly what cases the rule on tomorrow. we don't know if that's one of the ones they're gonna roll their issue in but there's only a few days left in which they're going to announce rulings for this year's cases, so that's a weird time to look for supreme court links but expect that tomorrow morning. eyes open on that one too. like i said, it's kind of a lot to head up about right now. there's a lot coming down the pike and as we follow all

that was this sustained by the united states supreme court in south carolina versus -- the next year and it isea thing cald one of the most effective pieces of civil rights legislation in american history and the fact it was called that by the justice department 2014 per dollar that was up-ended in 2013 by the shelby county decision which all of a sudden invalidated the preclearance requirement so now instead of normal what we have is the justice department had to file suit every time there's a nonconstitutional chained to the voting laws where the 15th amendment or some other part of the constitution and as a result your justice department has to spend a lot more money filing lawsuits to reverse these voting law changes. am i correct in back? >> you are muted sir. >> i am sorry. this is my first virtual hearing. you are correct that coverage form that permitted the preclearance to continue so it's not the case of the justice department in section 2 of the act or constitutional pattern of park this is and procedures. this does require us in individual cases which are much more time-c

we'll pursue this to the michigan supreme court in not the united states supreme court if necessary.ht now? >> i feel like my constitutional protected rights have taken away. i feel like governor whitmer, and attorney general discriminate me. they don't treat me right. i feel like not a citizen. i feel like they treat me like them slight because as you know, the rights they should protect us and do all the stuff that they should do to every citizen. i don't think so. i didn't interfere with anyone inalienable rights. elizabeth: got it. >> [inaudible] elizabeth: got it. marlena, robert baker, thanks so much for joining us. we appreciate it. stay right there. we have more show right after the break. don't go away. t. oh yeah. i think i might get a quote. not again! aah, come on rice. do your thing. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ common love isn't for us ♪ ♪ we created something phenomenal ♪ ♪ don't you agree? ♪ ♪ don't you agree? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ow! ♪ ♪ ♪ look, if your wireless carrier was a guy you'd leave him tomorrow. not very flexible. not great a

biden travels to oklahoma to mark the 100th anniversary of the tulsa race massacre, plus the united states supremegton, it's been a pleasure. fox news prime time is up next, have a great night. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening and welcome to "fox news primetime." thank you for joining me on this blessed memorial day. when we remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of this country. we all should honor those men and women who gave all in her defense as ronald reagan said, it is in a way an odd thing to honor those who died in defense of our country, in defense of us, in wars far away. the imagination pays a trick. we see these soldiers in our minds, we see them

your new book, while justice sleeps, is about the united states supreme court. that means that you and i know have something in common. we have both written fiction about the supreme court. i was a writer on a not well remembered, very short lived actually, cbs series set in the supreme court with the great james garner as the chief justice, charles, the wonderful actor, another supreme court justice, and when i found is a fiction writer is that boy that's a difficult place to write fiction. it is very hard to get the action going in the supreme court, but you have done it in this book. why did you choose this focus for your fiction? >> i want to begin by apologizing to lure a day for you know doing anything that could possibly ruin a future friendship. >> thank you, that helps me a lot. absolutely. one of my dearest friends, teresa, who used to work in the clinton justice department, she was one of my mentors that my law firm and we were having lunch one day, in 2008, she said have you thought about this court in the constitution that the only people with a lif

with the civil rights act, we missed the implementation plan that the united states supreme court struck down. so we can do police reform, but it's the implementation plan. what does that look like? how long will it take to go into effect? i want him to be safe during that process. and so we've chosen to live here. there's a lot of work that we have to do. the urgency of now is critical. it took 400 years to get us here. we're going to have to be a little patient. it may be his grandchildren that live the reality of what i hope for, for him. >> yeah, it is hard to be patient when you're talking about the future and the safety of your children. keith magee, thank you so much. zayden, thank you so much. your son is beautiful, keith. we certainly appreciate you sharing him and his sweetness with us. thank you both. >> ninjagos, rule. >> thank you so much. >> power rangers, too. >> ninjagos do rule. >> thank you. >> thanks, zayden. >>> coming up, the justice department's surprise appeal over a secret memo used to justify not charging president trump with obstruction. >> florida governor ran

. >> the united states supreme court is broken.mocrats want to add as many as four justices to the court. the commission will put out a final report by november but no formal recommendations. any changes the would be up to congress. >> if the democrats had done much, much better in the election than they did, i think there might be some momentum. at this point, with a 50/50 senate, it's just not happening. >> in addition to potential hurdles passing the senate, house speaker nancy pelosi, bret, said she has no plans to bring any legislation that would alter the number of justices on the court to the house floor. bret? >> bret: david spunt outside the supreme court. david, thank you. up next, president biden is pushing israeli prime minister netanyahu to draw down. but giving russian leader vladimir putin a win. a panel trying to make sense of the foreign policy after the break. ♪ ♪ and vacation rentals like kayak does for flights. so it's kayak. yeah, like kayak. why don't you just call it kayak. i'm calling it... canoe. compare hu

named thurgood marshall, who of course would go on to become the first black justice on the united states supreme court. and that case, that case of that black texas dentist in fact went all the way to the supreme court. and the supreme court ruled 8-1 that dr. smith had the right to vote in the texas primary, that the idea, this rule in texas of an all-white election was unconstitutional. the majority ruling reading in part, quote, the united states is a constitutional democracy. its organic law grants to all citizens the right to participate in the choice of elected officials without restriction by any state because of race. constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be thus indirectly denied. the next day, april 4th, 1944, this was the headline in "the new york times." high court rules negroes can vote in texas primary. denial of right to vote because of race violates the 15th amendment. that ruling -- remember, this is 1944. this is not ancient history. this is 1944. that ruling had huge implications all over the country. there were all-white primaries all over the south. bu

he has won 35 cases in the united states supreme court. he is one every case he has presented on this show. professor tribe, go ahead. donald trump's absolute immunity from civil process, civil lawsuit, because of january six? >> it's a remarkable claim, lawrence. it's a claim that i'm not even sure richard nixon would have made. nixon actually invoked the claim of absolute immunity from certain kinds of civil lawsuits. there was one brought by the a guy named bernie fitzgerald after nixon's executive order reorganizing the air force. and after nixon left office, fitzgerald sued nixon saying, that he was reorganized out of a job and that the real reason the president did was that he didn't like the way fitzgerald had testified against him. the u.s. supreme court in 1982, in a case call nixon versus face charles, held that when the president is exercising his official duties, he cannot be held liable. among other things, the court said, the desire to be reelected will deter the president from abusing his official duties. that's a good one i

it took the equal justice initiative and brian stephenson to appeal my case to the united states supremeou a heads-up when we have about 40 seconds left because you said you wanted to share something else, so we're at that point. i got to tell you. >> yeah, my poetry. poetry helped me survive solitary confinement, so i'll share a little bit of it with you right now. it's called "every time i breathe." every time i breathe, i'm thankful for the oxygen from the trees and little things like little bees that get overlooked until they sting. you know, it's hard to do the depth of my poetry in such a short period of time but it's what helped me survive by diving into my imagination and living my life in a solitary confinement cell. had it not been for poetry, i would not have survived. >> i love hearing that. i like getting just a couple et. for anyone who thinks that's too short, that's on me, not ian, because we try to fit so much into these news hours. i appreciate you sharing what you have been through, sir. we can only imagine it. we weren't there. for those who are interested in more, i

massacre, plus the united states supreme court enters its final weeks of the session with key cases amid retirement rumors. thank you for watching "special report." i'm mike emanuel in washington, it's been a pleasure. fox news prime time is up next, have a great night. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening and welcome to "fox news primetime." thank you for joining me on this blessed memorial day. when we remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of this country. we all should honor those men and women who gave all in her defense as ronald reagan said, it is in a way an odd thing to honor those who died in defense of our country, in defense of us, in wars far away. the imagination pays a trick. we see these soldiers in our minds, we see them as something like the founding fathers, grave and gray-haired. but most of them were boys when they died and they gave up two lives, the one they were living in the one they would have lived. it when they died they give up their chance to be husbands and fathers and grandfathers. they gave up their chance to be revered old men. if they gave up ever

as you know, the united states supreme court in alabama recognized that adolescentses is in the claste class of mature and self--- of adults. can you give us more about children's development into adult hood? what congress should do, what policies and demu laws should we adopt? >> thank you for that question, congresswoman dean. i think, for example, with those supreme court decisions in graham and miller, congress should go about banning life without pa parole -- parole for anyone 18 and over. that practice has been predicted for some time now. the second thing is i do believe we need to create an unforcible banal on placing children in adult prisons and this is an area where congress could control and try to respond to prison violence at the state level. the prison elimination act passed in 2003 was about controlling a problem in the states and i think the congress should fulfill the promise of eliminating that. make it a right of action so that lawyers can question the placements of children in adult jails. the third thing is raise the mini mall -- minimum wage. the ja was talking a

you're in the united states supreme court. by definition, it is going to be an important case and a difficult experience. ms. cushman: i can only imagine. you are hired by virginia military institute foundation, and also by vmi's alumni association. what can you tell us about how they approach you and what was the process like being hired to argue the case? mr. olson: we were contacted during the time of the case, this litigation went on for some time before it got to the supreme court. it had been argued in litigated in the district. then, it had gone to the court of appeals. and it had gone back to the district court. it went to the court of appeals somewhere during that process, i was approached about whether i would be available when and if this case went to the supreme court. and, of course i was gratified to have the opportunity to do that. and, i began to prepare for the possibility that we would be in the supreme court someday during the early stages of litigation. i had worked together with the lawyers who handled the

extremist who had plans to conduct a similar attack on an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states justice sotomayor. the supreme court has noted significant concerns about the physical concerns of courthouses, the judges are targets of higher numbers of serious threat communications and related measures indicate judiciary security is greater risk. do you agree that the federal judiciary faces a more dangerous security environment now than it has in times past? ag garland: i do. as you mention, i am acutely aware of this. i served when i was a judge on the security committee and i served as the chair of the executive committee. in both positions, i and the conference as a whole am concerned about judicial security. with the rise of violence extremism, judges as do many other officials in state and federal governments are becoming more likely to be targets. this is something we have to be very very concerned about. >> having said that, could you share how the justice department particularly through the u.s. marshal service can improve security and whether they will be more judicial

>> well, i think that the supreme court of the united states just had something to say about it. they just had a ruling at the end of last-- i don't know what day it is forgive me, but recently that they struck it down in i believe in maryland or somewhere, so i don't think that that's going to be an issue because -- here is my background on extreme protection orders. we already have a vehicle to help people who are in crisis. we have a vehicle to hold the 72 hours and get a psychological evaluation. a red flag law, like going and taking somebody's guns, removing one means of having an issue, where is the compassion in helping somebody by removing their means to defend themselves if they should need it during the time they're in crisis. >> especially when the process for removing that, the person is going to be losing their firearm, losing their second amendment liberties, doesn't get to be a part of that initial hearing. >> correct. and mr. massie brought up nicky, who, you know, she went through a traumatic incident, she saw her husband murdered, this extreme protection orders

it is the united states supreme court court 6-3 in the decision upholding indiana's voter i.d. law, a law that i helped defend on behalf of a number of states and we won 6-3. supreme court said voter fraud is a persistent problem that occurred over and over again. but democrats have adopted the bizarre talking point that is essentially ostrich stick your head in the sand and doesn't exist but it is worse than that. the last major by part shan examination of voter fraud chaired by jimmy carter and james baker. the carter baker commission concluded that voter fraud is a serious and persistent problem that changed the outcome in numerous election and recommended a host of reforms to prevent voter fraud. things like requiring photo i.d. what does the corrupt politicians act do? does the opposite of the recommendations from the carter baker commission. in fact, it takes areas where the carter baker commission said are most likely to cause fraud, things like mail-in voting and ballot harvesting and it mandates them universally. dana, i operate from the assumption that people intend th

abortion ban could signal major challenges and major changes to access to abortion in the united states. >> the supremes also taking up a case of gun rights and may hear a case on affirmative action. are we see how trump's jusdges could impact for years to come? >> this case is moment tous not only for itself but what it could portend pore voting rights, immigration reform, lgbtq rights and civil rights. we have a situation i believe we have been in before where you have a court majority that is putting itself directly at odds with the priorities of what is emerging as the nation's political majority. democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the eight last presidential elections, no matter has ever done that, represented a majority of the senate for all but two of the past 40 years yet this court is in a position to block much of what this majority is trying to do, like in the 1850s when a court was appointed by pro-southern presidents and in the 1930s when you had a court appointed by previous republican preside presidents blocking the agenda of the emerging fdr majority. >> trump with the help