last world cup this board still draws say they have big plans but it will continue russian justice breyer we have a project that schools and universities we held competitions across the country and fifty percent of all universities are taking part we're making our first steps but it's a big achievement as there's no such project in the world hey nouriel foods all torn and dedicated to victory in world war two was held in two thousand and nine and last year had became an international event alongside the host this year spain hungary and ukraine are also taking part and when they're older now russia face they come here and underdogs and paper the visitors were sold to fans and headed to play a concert taking game and that pay dividends as a drop to their luck in the second hop the russians had a plethora of scoring chances but lacked the killer instinct in front of will rank fourth in the world the home side piled on the pressure as they went in search of an equaliser and finally alexander sweater whatever made it all square with these long range effort i russia where most of their opponent

to keep these matters, and what is the evidence the congress did not intend that such as justice breyer quoted from the house report recognizing not as freddie accept that but it seems to articulate a very common sense limitation that says you have to have a federal end to vacation in the first instance and once you've got that in the state is allowed to add that sanction. that principle seems to me is reinforced by the limitation on what you can use the i-9 four. it seems to me quite clear what the congress envisioned in 1986 when it adopted this is an exclusively federal enforcement scheme including the adjudicatory process and it is only in that context that you are allowed to use the i-9 and the notion that the state could adopt a standard of intentional or knowingly not being able to have the materials available will be flatly at odds with each other and therefore it can't be the congress intended men of those circumstances to allow these matters to be and adjudicated in that particular fashion. >> what can the state do that will be complementary rather than conflicting? >> it seem

shot at the question about the constitution to get it pocket constitution signed by justice stephen breyer20 minutes left. san jose, california. go ahead. caller: i have a question. am i on? what are the likely topics for the frq's? guest: always look for the rays that the topics can cough -- cross reference. i like the topic of federalism and campaigns. a brilliant question with been how do we see federalism at play in our elections? what national laws are governing elections? they have to take place on the first tuesday after the first monday of november, according to the constitution, and the idea that state and local governments have roles like residency requirements. guest: it has been awhile since we have seen a court's process question. maybe something about the role of four. how many justices does it take? i would not be surprised if you see words like "a majority of opinion," "concurring opinion," and the unsigned opinion of the court. i would not be surprised. host: what is the history for unassigned opinions? guest: we will never forget bush to be -- bush v. gore coming out sayi

the principal descent by justice stevenson was also an original list opinion but justice breyer wrote a different descent and it was just as rigorously pragmatic so. this was an example of a case in which theory meant a lot. the choice of the theory that a justice selected meant a lot in the outcome. but that was really the exception that proves the resume. and another case that came along a couple of years later in the wake of heller illustrates this point. and this is the second item on my list. most of our constitutional occasions are governed by precedent and not by theory. now, the case that came along in the wake of heller, which illustrates this point, is a case called mcdonald versus the city of chicago and this was also about the second-amendment right to keep and bear arms. heller involved the district of columbia so it did not concern the question of the application of the second amendment to the states. mcdonald presented that latter question. now, for the few non-lawyers who are in the room, let me back up for a second and provide a little bit of constitutional background

through the 1960s, like many of you having the privilege of growing up in those years -- not chloe breyer, by the way. [laughter] had the privilege and the burden of reckoning with the ways in which religion wasn't the opposite of war, religion was implicated in it. in my experience, that had to do with reckoning with the church's history in relation to the holocaust and also, in a powerful way, reckoning with the complicity both of christian and catholic institutions and subliminal christian assumptions in american foreign policy, the implication of my religious identity with the war in vietnam. which was started by a catholic despotic inquisition-style regime in saigon. so by the time i was ordained, 969, became a priest -- 1969, became a priest, religion and violence defined, those were the brackets within which i was living my life. and it's not a surprise, i suppose, that i twine my whole -- define my whole five years as a priest because i was conscripted into it, not because i chose it, by the anti-christian movement which is when i first met jim jim more when he was one of the prop

justice breyer kind of mocked that in dissent. host: some of the response to this -- people are suggesting is narrow and limited in its scope. what's your interpretation based on your reading? guest: my sense is that if other states want to follow arizona's lead in the area of harsh penalties, they can do that. if they want to make up their own definition of what is an illegal worker and do something different from the federal government, they probably cannot do that. what arizona did certainly serves as a model for other states. host: tea leaf readers are looking to if it signals the court -- the law that allows people to be pulled over and their status checked by authorities. guest: the ninth circu has blocked enforcement of that law, the much more harsh law. it's fairly likely that either that appeal or a later one in the same case will reach the court pretty soon. i wouldn't read too much into yesterday's decision about what it would do in that second case. it involves different issues. as i said before, the current case conce

shot at the question about the constitution to get it pocket constitution signed by justice stephen breyer. 20 minutes left. san jose, californi go ahead. caller: i have a question. am i on? what are the likely topics for the frq's? guest: always look for the rays that the topics can cough -- cross reference. i like the topic of federalism and campaigns. a brilliant question with been how do we see federalism at play in our elections? what national laws are governing elections? they have to take place on the first tuesday after the first monday of november, according to the constitution, and the idea that state and local governments have roles like residency requirements. guest: it has been awhile since we have seen a court's process question. maybe something about the role of four. how many justices does it take? i would not be surprised if you see words like "a majority of opinion," "concurring opion," and the unsigned opinion of the court. i would not be surprised. host: what is the history for unassigned opinions? guest: we will never forget bush to be -- bush v. gore coming out saying

the dissent was also our originalist, but justice breyer wrote another which he has articulated in anotherumber of books. it was rigorously pragmatic. theory meant a lot. justice election meant a lot in the outcome. but that was the exception that proves the rule. in another case that came along, a couple of years later, in the wake of heller, it illustrates this point. this is the second item on my list. most of our constitutional cases are governed by precedent, and not by theory. the case that came along in the wake of the heller case is macdonald v. the city of chicago. this is also about the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. heller and all the district of columbia, so it did not concern the question of the application of the second amendment to the states. mcdonald presented that latter question. for the few non-lawyers in their room, let me back up for a second and provide a little constitutional background. the provisions of the bill of rights as originally adopted applied only to the federal government. they did not apply to the states. it was not until after the ratifi

and that of justice stevens was an originalist opinion, and justice breyer wrote to his philosophy in a number of books and just as pragmatic. so this was an example that theory meant a lot. the choice of a theory that a justice selected meant a lot in the outcome. but that was the exception that proves the rule. a case that came in the wake of heller illustrates this point. this is the second item on my list. most of our constitutional cases are governed by precedent and not by theory. the case that came along in the wake of heller, that illustrates this case. is a case called mcdonald versus the city of chicago. and this was also about the second amendment, right to bear arms. heller involved the district of col columb columbia, and didn't have the application to the state. mcdonald presented that latter question. and for the nonlawyers in the room, let me back up and provide some constitutional backgrounds. the provisions of the bill of rights originally adopted app applied only to the federal government. and not to the states. only after the rattiification o the 13, 14 and 15th am

the principal dissent by justice stevens was also an originalist opinion, but justice breyer wrote a separate dissenting opinion that was just as rigorously pragmatic. so the theory meant a lot. it meant a lot to the outcome. that was the exception that proves the rule. another case that came along a couple of years later in the wake inheller -- in the wake of heller illustrates this point. this is the second item on my list. most cases are decided by president and not by theory. the case came along in the wake of heller. it is a case called mcdonnell verses the city of chicago -- vs. the city of chicago. this also involves the right to keep and bear arms. heller involved the district of columbia, so it did not have the question of the issue for the states. for the few non-lawyers, let me back up and provide some constitutional background. the provision for the bill of rights was originally to apply only to the federal government, not to the states. it was not until after the ratification of post-civil war amendments that the question arose, that type of question was presented a new

justice breyer kind of mocked that in dissent.t: some of the response to this -- people are suggesting is narrow and limited in its scope. what's your interpretation based on your reading? guest: my sense is that if other states want to follow arizona's lead in the area of harsh penalties, they can do that. if they want to make up their own definition of what is an illegal worker and do something different from the federal government, they probably cannot do that. what arizona did certainly serves as a model for other states. host: tea leaf readers are looking to if it signals the court -- the law that allows people to be pulled over and their status checked by authorities. guest: the ninth circuit has blocked enforcement of that law, the much more harsh law. it's fairly likely that either that appeal or a later one in the same case will reach the court pretty soon. i wouldn't read too much into yesterday's decision about what it would do in that second case. it involves different issues. as i said before, the current case concern

justice breyer wrote a separate dissent and that was true to his judicial philosophy which he has articulatedn a number of books. it was just as rigorously pragmatic. this was an example of a case in which theory meant a lot. the choice of the theory that a justice elected meant a lot in the outcome. that was really the exception that proves the rule. another case that came along a couple of years later in the wake of heller illustrates this point. this is the second item on my list -- most of our constitutional cases are governed by precedent and not by theory. the case that came along in the wake of heller which illustrates this point is a case called mcdonald vs. the city of chicago. this is about the second man and right to keep and bear arms, also. this in -- heller involve the district of columbia so it did not involve the second amendment to the states. for the few non-lawyers in the room, let me back up for a second and provide some constitutional background. the provisions of the bill of rights as originally adopted applied only to the federal government. they did not apply to the st

justice breyer made the point no lawyer is going to take a case for $30.22. but the reality here is even the injustices will go on remedied. this is nothing better than a decision by the conservative majority to favor business over consumers. and i mention this week typical what we see closing the courthouse doors. [applause] >> john? >> weigel we all agree and come out the same place with the court is doing my focus has been primarily on why they're doing it and held the are accomplishing it revive been much more concerned over the years with the process by which president succeed in getting the courts what they want. recently i did it panelings in francisco with two of my predecessors or successors i should say, one was white house counsel for bill clinton, and greg was obama's during the time they selected the justices so we had a chance on the record and off the record to compare notes. the process i must say is striking. it starts with nixon in a very deliberate and calculated fashion to stack the courts including the highest courts but what's become a l