justice alito: how is it -- how is it procedural? i don't understand how you can say it's a procedural right. you said -- you said the statute is void for vagueness. that certainly is substantive. mr. rosenkranz: your honor, you say the statute is void for vagueness because when it is being applied to an individual, that individual is given no notice that lifetime banishment is going to be the consequence of what he thought to be a safe harbor -- justice alito: and what if he was given notice in some other way? mr. rosenkranz: i think it depends in what way. but this court said in johnson -- i mean, johnson actually had notice. johnson knew that the illegal -- that the sawed-off shotgun was illegal, but this court struck the statute. justice alito: so that makes my point. he had notice. he knew. so where's the procedural violation? mr. rosenkranz: well, for -- for the vast majority of people and the people who are affected by it, it is procedural. but, you know, your honor, i just realized, in this colloquy, i never did answer the ot

justice alito: well, mr. smith - chief justice roberts: no, but you're going to take this -- the whole point is you're taking these issues away from democracy and you're throwing them into the courts pursuant to, and it may be simply my educational background, but i can only describe as sociological gobbledygook. mr. smith: your honor, this is -this is not complicated. it is a measure of how unfair the map is. how much burden can the party - justice breyer: can you say this? look, don't agree with me just because it sounds favorable, because he won't in two minutes. can you answer the chief justice's question and say the reason they lost is because if party a wins a majority of votes, party a controls the legislature. that seems fair. and if party a loses a majority of votes, it still controls the legislature. that doesn't seem fair. and can we say that without going into what i agree is pretty good gobbledygook? [laughter] chief justice roberts: and if you need a convenient label for that approach, you can c

the reason i'm worried alito i'med to be hedging his bets about this. you get to page 4 of his opinion, it seems like he's holding it off to the side because he doesn't want to say anything that might threaten hostile environments based on offensive speech. pick your group, arabs, jews, catholics, blacks, hispanics, whatever it is, you could have a poster in a workplace the boss doesn't force to be removed and the government steps in and we will continue to enforce through the eoc and alito's version of this at least recognizes the tension and does his best to try to preserve it. that's where i think you could treat the redskins not as a speaker but employer or manager of public accommodation or stadium. at that point, could you have a public accommodation that says down with native americans, native americans are terrible scalping kind of folk? i don't think you could. it would be a hostile environment and you get sued. how does that play out with the redskins and could you go after their trademarks claiming the use of their trademarks is hostile to th

justice alito wrote a law offense bedrock first amendment principles. speaking speech and of the band on the ground that oppresses ideas. finally we'll talk about the fate of the washington redskins trademark that the government canceled under that same clause. after the supreme court handed down its opinion in june all parties -- and the department of justice. the case control the position of the case in the court must enter judgment. >> four months since the fort -- fourth circuit has not done so. his m. are trying to distinguished the case in order to rule against the redskins? we will explore the future of free speech with a great panel of experts. jim caruso ceo and -- a flying dog brewery. flying dog is a 32nd largest brewery in a country known for its world-class beers combined with distinctive label art created by an artist. jim is as passionate about this first amendment as eight is the beer he produces. 2015 damages after his court battle jim found the first amendment society nonprofit mission to raise public awareness about first amendment pr

you see that justice alito ends up writing the majority has not historically been into free speech. i think for him he saw this as part of the political correctness movement, put this in line with walker v sons of confederate veterans whether or not the state of texas could deny a confederate flag license plate in a very robust license plate private license plate system. another thing in the case, justice breyer doesn't always turn everything into a balancing proportionality test i think is good, everything has to be weighed, a free form balancing case and case like reed v gilbert and he rejected categories for a basic multi-factor balancing test hard to predict but justice breyer said we will protect this and not have a multi-justice balancing test and the court did not fall to political correctness a big thing we talk about now. i felt this was very important because i didn't feel the redskins case hanging over them in a heated time people don't like what a lot of people are saying and get very upset, that didn't upset this decision and wasn't unconstitutional. we have the governm

you see justice alito has not historically been good to free speech. for him, he saw this as part of the political correctness movement. i put this in a line with walker versus confederate veterans, which is a case about whether or not be state of texas can deny a confederate flag in license plate in a robust license plate system. and is not always turn into a balancing and proportionality test. he did not have a jurisprudence of portion only. freeform balancing test. a case like reid versus talbert, he rejected the mechanical use of categories for basic analysis, which is a balancing test that is hard to predict. the justice came on and said we will protect this and not have a multifactor balancing test. the course did not fall to political correctness, which is a very big thing we talk about now, but i think this is important because i did feel the redskins case hanging over them in this question with a very heated time where people do not like a lot of what people are saying, and they get upset. that did not affect their decision that this was not u

but, justice alito in attempting to distinguish the disruption of commerce. discrimination said even if it were true it's not narrowly tailored. that can be fixed. potentially by the pto issuing a new ruling saying we construe the statutory command to only reach this tiny, narrow area of offenses given to minority groups that are subject to traditional verses of discrimination. the reason to worry about this a little bit, i think the supreme court would smack them in the head if they did that, but i worry about it because the implications arguably apply to a hostile environment so is it now hostile environment to post a cover of this in my cubicle at work or have redskins were more offensive sign up in my cubicle that would defend various groups at work. i think that's a closer call under the current law, in my free-speech world the answer is obvious, you can't fire me from having offensive signs even if it's at work. that's not today's law and probably not where majority of the court would go. so why is it you can make a similar argument that it's offensive

what intercontinental action will justice alito have? senator lee: i think neil gorsuch will be a coalition builder by virtue of the fact he is very smart and not afraid to express his opinions and very much in the mold of justice scalia in the sense his focus is on the text, the text of a statute being construed or the constitutional provision at issue. brent: you raised the masterpiece case and i saw you filed a friend of the court brief supporting the colorado baker. i wonder if you could walk us through your thought process and how you think judges should be balancing public accommodation law versus, you know, the religious rights of citizens and what would you say to people who say that this case, if the baker wants, at least threaten to drive a hole through accommodations laws that prevented businesses from picking and choosing who they served? senator lee: i'm happy to answer that question. this case really is not about public accommodations law so much as it is about compelled speech. i view this as a compelled speech case. the b

just to talk about the decision itself actually is three decisions we have justice samuel alito coming out for free speech which if you know about his jurisprudence his not been good on what we call offensive speech. he wrote are performed to national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious assault that occurred in this case. in the u.s. stevens which is about videos about animals being

alito seems to be hedging his bets. he is holding the sovereignty side, as he doesn't want to say anything that might threaten hostile environments, based upon speech. pick your group. catholics, blacks. you can come up with a dozen examples. and then, the governm,enent stes in. that is restrictive behavior by the government, that we would continue to enforce. version of this does its best to 22 -- to try to preserve it. -- at that point, could you have public accommodation that says, down with native americans? they are terrible? i don't think you could. how does that play out? the use of these trademarks could be hostile to employees. >> i want to ask, related. is another provision of this, still out there. matter that is part of trademark. this is just as bad as disparaging. you, for a great panel. owner, youss mentioned you were threatened with criminal prosecution. how does that affect your private business? how does this affect you as a whole? >> i sleep like a baby and wake up every hour, crying. keep in mind, wh

like that and he views the law in much the same way as justice thomas and my former boss as justice alito in some of the same way his predecessor saw the world in the same light. we have to remember in most cases in the supreme court are not decided 5-4. most of them are not even decided 6-3. a whole lot of them are decided unanimously or 8-1 or 7-2. it's in the politically charged cases you tend to see much more of a division. but i do suspect you'll often see four justices lining up quite consistently on the conservative side of things, often with the support of justice kennedy but not always. i also think you'll continue to see real meaning, value being added by justice gorsuch. in other words, i don't think he'll be blindly following his conservative colleagues in those cases. i think he'll be contributing in a very meaningful way to their analytical skills. he's very much in the same league with him in terms of his confidence, in terms of his judicial philosophy in his ability to apply the law to the facts of any case. >> senator lee, did senator mitch mcconnell set a new precedent i

host: justice roberts, tomples, alito, kennedy and then solicitor general. the notes we got about the they dealt with immigration, religious freedom, and democracy among other issues. we are talking they dealt with hurly who is with thompson reuters, supreme court correspondent taking your questions and comments on the new term. eon from california. caller: good morning. nothing that supreme court decides with gorsuch from the should even be acknowledged because gorsuch is someone that only the republicans have should even de on the court. the democrats have been put on the sideline. so that's where we should stay. on the sideline, just watching. that's my comment. >> reaction? guest: that's a reference to i believe the appointment of justice gorsuch which was made possible because the republican controlled senate refused to act on the former president barack obama's nominee for that same position which was appeals court judge garland. the republicans held the seat over until the election took place, and then when donald trump won he was able to appoint knee

host: justice roberts, tomples, alito, kennedy and then solicitor general. the notes we got about the they dealt with immigration, religious freedom, and democracy among other issues. we are talking they dealt with hurly who is with thompson reuters, supreme court correspondent taking your questions and comments on the new term. eon from california. caller: good morning. nothing that supreme court decides with gorsuch from the should even be acknowledged because gorsuch is someone that only the republicans have should even de on the court. the democrats have been put on the sideline. so that's where we should stay. on the sideline, just watching. that's my comment. >> reaction? guest: that's a reference to i believe the appointment of justice gorsuch which was made possible because the republican controlled senate refused to act on the former president barack obama's nominee for that same position which was appeals court judge garland. the republicans held the seat over until the election took place, and then when donald trump won he was able to appoint knee

has one. >> maybe it's a good time for alito. >> i wanted to know what the government's position is the norris laguardia issue. it not before us? is it so closely tied to the nlra issue that it's appropriate for us to decide it? have an opportunity to brief it? what's your position on this? those,ink both of justice. it's not before the court, but frankly, i don't think it matters because i don't think it adds anything. the text is essentially wereical and both statutes understood to coexist comfortably with the faa, and it's really only d.r. horton that read both section 7 and the sections of the norris laguardia act to grant the employees something that those statutes had never been thought to grant them, and it's that ambiguity that's problem. >> maybe justice kagan can proceed. >> if you had a discriminatory arbitration agreement, let's say an arbitration agreement that said that the employer will pay arbitration costs of men but not women, that that would not enforceable. why not? >> i think a couple of reasons, justice kagan. cameirst is if that case to the court, i think we w

. >> we have utah senator mike lee who clerked for justice alito and he talked about this case. here's a look. >> i view this as a compelled escape case. the bakery owner was being asked to do something expressive condt engage in expressionsive conduct. the cake baker was not unwilling in any respect to do business with same-sex couples. what he didn't want to do was to use his expressive talents to make a specialty cake in this circumstance. he would have been happy to selh one off the shelf. wasn't inclined to participate in the wedding by putting his expressive talents to work for a unique way in this case inch that respect, think this case is more properly viewed as something involving compelled speech. there are, as you know,ing highenned standards that applynd when the government is trying to compel someone to engage in speech or to express themselves against their own will. >> lawrence hurley, compelled speech case. >> exactly. about the free speech, the lawyers of the bakers say it's about hit free speech rights.ee this lawyers for the gay couple say that a ruling in fav

the reason i'm worried alito i'med to be hedging his bets about this. you get to page 4 of his opinion, it seems like he's holding it off to the side because he doesn't want to say anything that might threaten hostile environments based on offensive speech. pick your group, arabs, jews, catholics, blacks, hispanics, whatever it is, you could have a poster in a workplace the boss doesn't force to be removed and the government steps in and we will continue to enforce through the eoc and alito's version of this at least recognizes the tension and does his best to try to preserve it. that's where i think you could treat the redskins not as a speaker but employer or manager of public accommodation or stadium. at that point, could you have a public accommodation that says down with native americans, native americans are terrible scalping kind of folk? i don't think you could. it would be a hostile environment and you get sued. how does that play out with the redskins and could you go after their trademarks claiming the use of their trademarks is hostile to th

you have a statute that has both criminal and civil applications. >> i took this away from justice alito. he wants to know the standard for determining vagueness in civil cases. >> so, the standard was laid out by this court in hoffman estates. the answer is, it depends on how serious the crime is. the seriousness of the crime, how serious a penalty is. >> that's where i get stuck. because the consequences in civil matters can be very grave. more so even though a lot of criminal penalties civil forfeiture. take a man's home. his entire livelihood. deport him. i can think of lots of other examples. graver than any other. the line between civil and criminal depends upon a seven part nonexclusive factor balancing test. how my supposed to do that? >> i will answer the question, but let me preface it by saying i've only mentioned one of the reasons that this court doesn't have to figure out the answer to that question. >> let's answer the question first. >> i would go back that this court has rejected a sharp line between civil and criminal. the correct distinction is the one that this court

among those attending, chief justice john roberts, stephen alito, stephen breyer, and anthony kennedy. outside theok church after the service. ♪ announcer: is supreme court begins its new term with the newest judge, and neil gorsuch, joining the bench. deal withhe docket gay rights, religious freedom, and whether some gerrymandering voting districts violate the constitution. c-spanere on the networks. tomorrow, a new america discussion on whether the growth of isis was inevitable and how different american choices might have prevented the rise of the islamic state. on c-span, online at to spend.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. monday night on the communicators -- of5g will open up a new line innovation. it will change what you use on your smartphone or tablet. >> verizon president kathy grillo talks about 5g deployment. a politicorviewed by reporter. >> do you think the u.s. has the framework to the make sure verizon is first getting it out? >> the fcc issued an order last year. we have done a pretty good job one fiber. getting fiber out where it needs to be. we could do so

justice alito asked, what else could they have done? one might also ask what else could the police have looked for as evidence of mens rea? and i think looking at the cases cited in this case, you see a number of examples that were absent. one is direct evidence which you see in some cases where the owner tells police these individuals knew they were not supposed to be in the house. don't have that. there's circumstantial evidence like forced into what somebody has to force her into the house because it's not theirs and their try to get into a house. here the evidence is that the host had keys. so there was no forced entry. >> we've been talking about probable cost up until now, but there's also the qualified immunity question, and this court has said that there's no liability on the part of the officer in less he or she knowingly violated the law or was plainly incompetent. so can you explain how you cross that hurdle? >> yes, justice ginsburg. our position is these officers were plainly incompetent in disregarding evidence of the part

rico's treated as one of us are annoying co-equals on the hind limb alito and then we'll kind of throw him along on the political free cool i see no one else can i knew i want to see. the island is controlled by the u.s. government and. crave independence. even. still many do wish to join the u.s. . every day. with the country at a crossroads of the island is on the rise. but . it is. because of. the headlines on international new york times out of. a quarter of the way mainstream on social media. and the hidden camera footage boasts about manipulating. editor i mean so i can see what doesn't go. the whole. liberated areas of syria here on the program we go inside the terror groups form a police station and prison many innocent.

what are you watching for from him, and i wanted to ask, we have seen him lineup with justice alito,ustice thomas, and the chief justice, and justice kennedy, i wonder what you make of this approach between the conservative camps? >> i think you will continue to see similar patterns like that. i think he views the law in much the same way as justice thomas and justice alito, in much the same way as his predecessor saw the world in the same light. we have to remember that most cases in the supreme court are not decided 5-4. most of them are not even decided 6-3. a lot of them are decided unanimously or 8-1 or 7-2. it is in the politically charged cases that you see much more division. see fort you will often justices lining up consistently on the conservative side of things often with the support of justice kennedy, but not always. i think you will continue to see real value being added by justice gorsuch. i don't think he will be blindly following his conservative colleagues. i think he will be contributing in a meaningful way to their analytical skills. he is very much in the same l

the first two things an ra poe of justice alito's assumption, it's a statute that congress elected to import into this statute. then courts must apply the same criminal vagueness standards. >> that seems like a minor point. >> i'm sorry. congress literally said in the ina that the crime, the definition of crimes of violence is the definition of section 16b. being a criminal statute. it then added all sorts of bells and whistles of other ways to create an aggrevated felony, but this court and ab small said here is what you do when you have a statute that has both criminal and civil applications. >> i took this waway from justie alito. he wants to know the standard for determining vagueness in civil cases. >> so, the standard was laid out by this court in hoffman estates. the seriousness of the crime, how serious a penalty is. . >> that's where i get stuck. the consequences in civil matters can be very grave. forfeitture. take a man's home. his entire livelihood. deport him. graver than any other. the line between civil and criminal depends. >> i will answer the question, but let me pre

or rico is treated as one as our own no economy calls and hind fulsome alito. for ornament only under puerto rico. can i do a lot of it doesn't make. the island is controlled by the us government and some puerto ricans crave independence joe it was the only kind i you know it was getting about on a. good at either way but i mean to sort of randomly go over drinking again. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day knowing. i'm a long way from mania. beings. with the country at a crossroads for anger on the island is on the rise. here's what people have been saying about rejected and i suspect it's full on awesome the only show i go out of my way to talk to you live in is the really packed a punch. yap is the john oliver of harvey americans do the same we are apparently better than booth. i see people you've never heard of love redacted tonight was the president of the world bank paid until any serious look send us an e-mail. and. you should still leave if you like since you took up the issue with everybody but. this was a bit of a lose lose

ricos treated as one bizarro no economy calls on the hind limb alito and then thrown him along on the fourth recall as little can i knew a lot of. the island is controlled by the us government and some puerto ricans crave independence joe it was the almighty god you know it was. good at either election but i'm going to sort of randomly go over that again again waiting in the last year earliest. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day knowing. that i'm a long way from mania. beings. with the country at a crossroads anger of the island is on the rise. name is always some are saying i built tiny houses for the homeless. see is back and they are here why do these guys out for me a tiny house is not a solution it will be a free for all. nice safe conditions to live in.

rico's treated as one as i don't know if we close in line for some alito you know something limp in them on. the puerto rico i see the little can i do well to see just how they can be seen the island is controlled by the us government and some puerto ricans crave independence just a little see it only gonna. do it either way but i mean to sort out i mean we're digging again. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day. and time along if i mean. beings. with the country at a crossroads anger of the island is on the rise. well for that. if you are like me you were probably mad when zero bankers went to jail for crashing the global economy in two thousand and eight that's one of my pet peeves. well i hope you set aside some of that rage for hearing that j.p. morgan chase paid their five point three billion dollars fine for fraud with the more florida when you got a good thing going you know here to discuss is our senior chill economist naomi go of our i don't. really know what's going on here john pierpont morgan did pay some of it one point one billion dollars was paid

ricos treated as one visitor knowing co-equals on the hind limb alito will some throw into them and confront him along on the point zero three cool i see no one else will come on you a lot of seats on the increase you know the island is controlled by the u.s. government and some puerto ricans crave independence see it oh my god you know me. either way but i'm going to sort of randomly go over taking a game. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day knowing. that i let me fall mean. beings. with a country. at a crossroads anger on the island is on the rise. greetings and salutation f.b.i. i want you to meet hot water yes the f.b.i. has found themselves swimming in hot water again hawk watchers this time for appearing to have their hand once again in the proverbial domestic terrorist factory cookie jar and a fascinating turn of events bruce joyner their security guard was wounded in the twenty fifteen isis inspired attack on the controversial draw mohammad event in garland texas is now suing the federal bureau of investigation for their alleged involvement in the attack a

but alito did not think he had to except that. he paid for that and refuse to fight. in first. >> host: ed -- that first hevo said a conscientious objector. sarah take my attacks dollars i am making a lot of money. the rorer everybody then treated as equals and then he said it rose against he was sentenced five years in prison and a band for boxing 3-1/2 years losing millions of dollars of inverse mystify revenue. finally he gets the chance to come back. and it is the key moment in the carrier as an athlete. the only two times the champion's head screwed off. right now it rose 1971 vietnam has change referral of is a mistake but he proved his convictions and suffered error was willing to do a sacrifice if you believe that you're not in the end gets put on his we are end. he said he was unconscious on the way u down in the ground war combat. he bounces right back up and hehe lives his but he does start fighting his way back to a rematch and a shot where americans started to show the fifth guy he was so? that now people admire his tenacity even those of you agree with h

rico's treated as one does not run the economy calls on the hind fulsome alito and then will confront him along on the point zero three cool i see no one else can i do a lot of he doesn't make. the island is controlled by the us government and some puerto ricans crave independence joe it was the almighty god you know. good at either way but i'm going to sort of randomly come over thinking again. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day knowing. i'm a long way from mania. beings. with the country at a crossroads for anger on the island is on the rise. a plate for many clubs over the years so i know the game inside god's. football isn't only about what happens on the pitch for the final school it's about the passion from the fans it's the age of the super money kill the narrowness in spending two to twenty million. books it's an experience like nothing else on the because i want to share what i think of what i know about the beautiful game but great so what chance with. the base it's going to. los angeles the sony of luxury and fame but also an alarming number of

rico is treated as one as are annoying calling colson a hind fulsom alito and then them account thrown him along on the board both recall as you know in a little can i do a lot of sense on the condition of the thumb the island is controlled by the us gov . and some puerto ricans crew even dependents do a little ceremony gonna. go by does it do it out either way like that i mean to sort of randomly go over digging again where you went last year early asking w still many do wish to join the u.s. hundreds more leave every day. on time along the. beings. with the country at a crossroads anger on the island is on the rise. as puerto rico continues to assess the colossal damage done by hurricanes arm and maria society has been debating the effectiveness of the government's response after what came across as a generally effective and media savvy response to hurricanes and houston and louisiana the president came under fire for a delayed reaction in puerto rico and whether it be paper towel throwing visit that seemed like more of an afterthought or the back and forth over whether or not to lif

or rico is treated as one that's not on the economy clothes on the hind fulsome alito not something olympian then will confront him only on the puerto rico i see you know when a little can i do a lot of seats and they can be seen on the island is controlled by the us government and some puerto ricans crave independence gentlemen will see it oh my god you know me. i don't i don't like the sequel to it at either we like it but i mean to sort of i mean we're thinking again waiting in the last year obviously. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day knowing. i'm a lonely fall mean. beings. with the country at a crossroads for anger of the island is on the rise. in the world. underwater. not me we do not know. oh you ought to go to. the to the move for your. peers will people been saying about redacted in the night with us exactly to pull along awesome the only show i go out of my way to launch you know we live in the really packed a punch. yampa is the john oliver of harvey americans do the same we are apparently better than booth. i see people you've never heard of love r

ricos treated as one as our own no economy calls on the hind fulsome alito you know something olympian then will confront him only on the point the three cool. little can i do i want to see doesn't make. the island is controlled by the us government and some puerto ricans crave independence just a little see it oh my god you know. what i don't like to think we're good at either but i mean to sort out what i mean what we're thinking again waiting in the audience who. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day knowing. i'm alone me from mania. beings. with the country at a crossroads for anger of the island is on the rise. no need you no more of the. underworld. not he didn't oh no. oh you ought to go to both he says the move for your. he. himself.

calls on the hind limb alito and then thrown him along on the portal three cool. little can i knew a lot of it doesn't make a ton the island is controlled by the us government and some puerto ricans crave independence joe it was the only god you know getting out on a. good at either election but i mean to sort of randomly go over that again again waiting in the earliest. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day knowing. that i'm a long way from mania. beings. with the country at a crossroads for anger of the island is on the rise. in case you're new to the game this is how it works not the economy is built around corporations corporations run washington washington media the media. the voters elected the businessman to run this country business equals power boom bust it's not business as usual it's business like it's never been done before. amman home dogs may not only be tasty but also deadly were lation shipped between kids sure it was proved suggested no proof and a fairly strong one there were two thousand routes involved in the study it'

. >> i think i interrupted justice alito. >> let's say there is a constitutional violation if there is a delay. what is the best way to deal with it? impose a hard time limit? would it be better to deal with it like speedy trial -- not speedy trial act, constitutional speedy trial claims where you look at all the particular factors of a particular case. >> it would be better to do the ladder route and several cases the court adopted bright line rules. the one i would focus on most intently i am not aware where the court has imsupposed a constitutional deadline. so much within control of the person who is asserting the constitutional right. >> individual situation like a habeas. if we say habeas can look at it, the courts will look at. what are they going to look at? i think they will look at whether you unreasonably delayed and there's a possibility so let's give this person a bond hearing. the issue here is whether the constitution sincebly wouensibl give people a bond hearing after the hearing. and they could decide whether he's a national security risk, committed a crime so heinous,

with alito went on tax reform? >> train to a trifecta of records on wall street.the dow closing and 23 pointer mixed bag of pointing out by nine. lauren: in europe, stocks higher right now the cac in paris down five points. >> images japanese stocks watching their 11th straight day of games day of games played in making day of gains for the nikkei appoint 38%. lauren: facebook knows no bounds. now they want to help you find a job. "fbn:am" starts right now. cheryl: 5:30 a.m. in new york. tuesday, october 17. i'm cheryl casone. lauren: good morning. lauren simonetti. a job from facebook. cheryl: what are they going to do next? i love it. like the amazon effect. a lot going on including the biggs tory happening in new york today. national football league set to meet in new york later today. commissioner goodell, players, coaches discussing the controversy trying to find a solution. >> here with a preview of what we can expect. tracee, how are they dealing with the kaepernick situation? neil: this is going to be huge. that'll be one of many things. the protester the

justices sclee gentleman, kennedy, thomas and alito on all of the ski issues raised about the individual mandate -- key issues raised about the individual mandate. they agreed about the scope of the taxing clause and they reed that the individual mandate provision was best read, best read, to impose a legal man tate, a penalty rather than a tax. mandate provision was best in short, that they agreed that the individual mandate best read could not be sustained as constitutional under the commerce necessary and proper and taxing clauses. think about that for a moment unless it is too painful for you to do so. [laughter] what they disagreed on with respect to the individual andate and amazingly, all they disagreed on was how to apply the constitutional avodance canon. in particular, they disagreed about whether the individual mandate provision was sufficiently ambiguous that the court should resort to the constitutional avoidance canon. the dissenters said it wasn't ambiguous. the chief said it was. for all that has been written about the case, the decision on the individual mandate turned n

the chief justice agreed with justices scalia, kennedy, thomas and alito, on all of the key constitutional and statutory issues raised about the individual mandate. those five justices agreed about the scope of the commerce and necessary improper clauses. they agreed about the scope of the taxing clause. and they agreed that the individual mandate provision was best red to impose a legal mandate a penalty rather than a tax. in short, that they agreed the individual mandate best read could not be sustained under the taxing clauses. think about that for a moment, unless it's too painful for you to do so. what they disagreed on with respect to the individual mandate. and amazingly, all they disagreed on -- all they disagreed on was how to apply the constitutional avoidance cannon. they disagreed about whether the mandate provision was ambiguous. the center said it wasn't ambiguous. the chief said it was. the decision on the individual mandate turned not on the proper interpretation of the constitution, and not on the best interpretation of the statute, it turned on how much room judges have t

if your answer to justice alito is on the face of the statute, that is certainly a manageable standard, i guess i would ask, why not if it is not on the face of the statute? but you have good evidence that there was the intent here, and you have good evidence the intent led to a certain kind of to entrench aas party in power. ms. murphy: i think what differentiates this from other context is we have opinion after opinion from this court, dissenting opinions, concurrent opinions, what have you saying considering politics in districting is not in and of itself inherently unconstitutional. just finding the intent is not a problem. >> i would like to go back to justice breyer's question and get an answer for me. what criteria would escape need to know in order to avoid having every district in every case in every election subject to litigation? the standards given in the lower court was a little bit of partisan symmetry problem, a little bit of efficiency gap problem. not a real set of criteria. 7%, how durable, how many elections when we need, how much data will be have to gather. provide

or rico's treated as one as our own oil goes on the hind limb alito and then. on the portal three cool. little can i do i want to toss and they could use you know the island is controlled by the u.s. government and some puerto rican screw even dependents gentlemen will see it only gonna. do it either way like that i'm going to sort out i mean we're digging a game where you. still many do wish to join the u.s. hundreds more leave every day. with the country at a crossroads anger of the island is on the rise. big difference between. president obama policy president obama was. gauging iran. he was after. iran. to come to international negotiations and see the. president he's. come. into the region. it's capability not currency that's the message block chain proponents want the travel industry to hear and airline giant lufthansa is answering that call it's entering into the industry's first ever partnership with a block chain provider it's involved in the presale of winding trees financing of a block chain marketplace entendre says a big selling point was the neutr

the chief justice agreed with the justices scalia, thomas, alito about the individual mandate and five justices agreed about the scope of the commerce and unnecessary causes. they agreed on the scope of the taxing clause and they agreed that the individual mandate provision was best read, best read to impose a legal mandate, a penalty rather than a tax. in short, that they agreed that the individual mandate best read could not be sustained as constitutional under the commerce necessary and proper and taxing clauses. think about that for a moment, unless it's too painful for you to do so. [laughter] >> what they disagreed on with respect to the individual mandate and amazingly all they disagreed on, all they disagreed on, was how to apply the constitutional avoidance can cannen. they disagreed whether it was sufficiently ambiguous with the avoidance canon. that the center said it was-- the chief said it was ambiguous. for what was written about the case, the individual mandate turned not on the proper interpretation of the constitution and not on the best interpretation of the statute,

if your answer to justice alito is on the face of the statute, that is certainly a manageable standard, i guess i would ask, why not if it is not on the face of the statute? but you have good evidence that there was the intent here, and you have good evidence the intent led to a certain kind of to entrench aas party in power. ms. murphy: i think what differentiates this from other context is we have opinion after opinion from this court, dissenting opinions, concurrent opinions, what have you saying considering politics in districting is not in and of itself inherently unconstitutional. just finding the intent is not a problem. >> i would like to go back to justice breyer's question and get an answer for me. what criteria would escape need to know in order to avoid having every district in every case in every election subject to litigation? the standards given in the lower court was a little bit of partisan symmetry problem, a little bit of efficiency gap problem. not a real set of criteria. 7%, how durable, how many elections when we need, how much data will be have to gather. provide

. >> i believe i interrupted justice alito. >> let's assume that would be a constitutional violation and what is the best way? do we impose a time when it? or do we deal with a speedy trial? where you look at all of the factors in a particular case. >> there are several differences with this setting but the one that would focus on the most intensely i am not aware of any situation the court has imposed the constitutional deadline where if those steps were in the control of the person. >> with individual consideration so then the croats killed look at it. if that is unreasonably delayed there is say possibilities to give this person a bond hearing. so this should say give them a bond hearing after a certain amount of time because that'd is independent neutral adjudicator can decide if those aliens held our national security risk and to be a danger to the community or if it is a class number but there was no zero criminal record with strong ties to the community and own property they should be let out. as opposed to creating a rule after a certain amount of time so explain why this per

tom alito director of international affairs and trade at the government accountability office g.a.o. our second witness, i spent some time with him this morning, professor of agricultural at cornell university. he has done outstanding work on this topic. our third witness is bill o'keefe referred to earlier vice president of government relations and advocacyy at the catholic relief services. we thank you for what you and your organization does in this regard. with that, if each of you could summarize in about five minutes if you have any written materials you want entered into the record without objection it will be. it you could just begin in the order of introduction we appreciate it and thank you all for your tremendous efforts. thank you. >> chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss our 2015 report on congo preference for food aid. the united states shipped 1.5 million metric tons of food aid in fiscal year 2015. under current u.s. law at least 50% of u.s. food aid must be shipped on u.s. flag vessels which was reduced from 7

review in 2013 found that the four conservative justices currently sitting on the court -- justice alito, roberts, thomas, and kennedy -- are among the six most business-friendly supreme court justices since 1946, so found the, a major study in the minnesota law review just four years ago. so four justices on the court now who were found among the six most business friendly. that's one indicator. another review by the constitutional accountability center which of course is ongoing as decisions are handed down, that shows that the consequences of the court's corporate tilt, finding that the chamber of commerce has had a success rate of 70% -- seven, zero -- a success rate of 70% of cases before the roberts court, a significant increase of the previous courts. two major indicators of the tilts of this supreme court. these cases are important to every american. cases involving, for example, rules for consumer contracts, challenges to regulations ensuring fair pay and labor standards, attempts by consumers to hold companies accountable for product safety and much, much more. and because the

chief justice john roberts , along with samuel alito, clarence thomas, and anthony kennedy. here is a look outside the church after the service. >> the supreme court -- a supreme court begins its new term tomorrow with its new justice, neil gorsuch. cases on the docket this term deal with immigration, gay freedom, andious whether gerrymandering some voting districts violates the constitution. watch decisions on the c-span networks. >> washington journal. live every day with policy issues that impact you. the supreme court term begins monday. the heritage foundation dis cusses north korea. of the president committee for a responsible federal election talk about the cost of the republican tax plan. watch washington journal at seven eastern monday morning. join the discussion. tuesday, we are live in charleston, west virginia. for the next stop on the c-span bus capitals tour. mitch carmichael will be one of our guests on the bus, starting at 8:1 5 a.m. -- 8:15 am. a with scottd greenberger. takeslcolm turnbull questions from the australian parliament. atn, jeremy corbyn speaks