i think it is a response, and implicit response to justice breyer. and i think i can quote it. he says the constitution does not embody herbert spencer's social ethics. a famous line from the justice holmes. and he says, "but it does have a first amendment. i think it can lead the's point is that the first amendment protect speech. this is speech. >> there was another case on the docket this term, a first amendment case. is that another example of defining in and finding out? you had the court concerned they might open the floodgate to retaliations. it is being seen as first amendment issues. that seemed a little like an example of the nevada case, an exception to the general tack with the first amendment. they seem not to want to bring that conduct within the scope of the first amendment. >> it is conceptually one of the most interesting cases of the term. this was brought under the petition clause. there are precious few supreme court cases ever under the petition cause. this is a case in which by all rights, everyone agrees the plaintiff would have lost with the free speech

in dissent, justice prior -- breyer made arguments for why congress could not have had in mind what the court attributive because the savings clause would blow up the preemption provision and undermine a statute more broadly, congress's concern about protecting unauthorized workers from race or national origin discrimination. that is a case in which you have one court arguing language structure and the other arguing statutory context. contrast that with conception. the court argued it was a law that the in class-action unenforceable. the california rule stood as an obstacle to the execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress. you have the same set, -- split, essentially. you have keyed justice roberts, scalia, kennedy, and coleco in the majority. and you have the others in dissent. in this case, justice scalia does not emphasize the language of the federal arbitration act. instead, he emphasizes what he called the principal purpose, which he described as insuring enforcement of arbitration agreements. the discretion allows for a streamlined procedures pertaining to the type

>> i heard the dog at the conference breyer -- conference. >> it was a series of workshops and related to special ended, so people were talking about how they were able to move fivethatd part of the discussion was a round of powering the school -- around and powering the school, and i've brought it up when we started talking about inclusion. we have special day questions, but is where it came from. >> i do not think we have the internal capacity to do that. five are with us but we begin by being able to know what we are spending -- i would ask we begin by being able to know what we are spending. all you can do is look in the special education budget, were you see a huge number of teachers. that is it. you do not know what schools they are in. >> what i would like to see is actually a special education budget include all costs, so for the extended school year, we are mandated to do about, and the district pays for a portion of it, too, but we must provide the schools, and we do use some of them for recovery, but it is first generated because of our legal commitment to extend the school

>> the real dissent by justice thomas and justice breyer. justice thomas has long believed that the drafters of the first amendment never envisioned minors having first amendment rights or access to speech except through parents or guard yachbs. that ended it for him. this law was constitutional. justice breyer felt that there was sufficient evidence here that the should defer to the legislature's judgment in california, that this law should be upheld. he asked, for example, does it make sense under the court's precedents that you can prohibit the sale of a magazine showing nude women to a 13-year-old boy and yet you're going to protect the sale of a video game in which that same 13-year-old acting virtually can bind, gag and kill a woman. >> ifill: let's talk for a moment about the other case because this was in arizona. it was a case where arizona state government tried to level the playing field when it came to campaign financing. >> arizona had what is known as a matching fund public financing system. it works this way. if you opt into t

the three female justices, along with justice stephen breyer dissented in part to the court's decision. justice ruth bader ginsburg said there was evidence "gender bias suffused wal-mart's corporate culture." women comprise 70% of the hourly workers at wal-mart but only one-third of management positions. >> those statistics are shocking. and they have statistics that there were huge pay disparities despite women having more experience and better performance reviews. that wasn't enough in this case the supreme court said the way they put it together. so that's a problem. justice ginsburg's dissent really outlined why this is the type of case that should be able to be brought as a single class; it made very clear that these sorts of practices, they aren't accidental. >> this landmark case could affect future class-action lawsuits because it tightened the definition of what constitutes a common issue for a class action. some legal experts say this decision is a major victory not just for wal-mart but other big u.s. companies facing class-action claims from their female workers. >> it's go

conservative leaning clarence thomas, and liberal leaning stephen breyer. he concluded that extremely violent games can harm children by rewarding them for being violently aggressive in play, and thereby often teaching them to be violently aggressive in life. 12-year-old sam strongham of tacoma park, maryland, had to get permission from his mom tracy before guying golden eye 007, a game that's rated teen. >> you just have to be aware. and you just, i think, have to have an open conversation with your children all the time. >> reporter: nancy cordes, cbs news, washington. >>> now to the battle in libya. moammar gadhafi is rejecting war crime charges. arrest warrants for gadhafi and others were issued by the international criminal court in the hague. they claim gadhafi is responsible for killing hundreds of civilians. but, he says the charges are politically motivated. >>> in syria, about 200 opposition leaders held a rare meeting in damascus. they demanded a peaceful transition to democracy yesterday, and an end to the rule of president assad. >>> iran is in

reporter: two justices disagreed, conservative leaning clarence thomas and liberal leaning stephen breyer. he concluded that extremely violent games can harm children by rewarding them for being violently aggressive in play and thereby often teaching them to be violently aggressive in life. 12-year-old sam strong of tacoma park, maryland, had to get permission from his mom tracy before buying "golden eye 007," a game that's rated "teen." >> you just have to be aware and you i think have to have an open conversation with your children all the time. >> reporter: she's an example of why so many supporters of the california law say today's decision isn't a total defeat because that this long and very public court battle encouraged a lot of parents to think twice about what their children are watching and playing, scott. >> pelley: nancy, i wonder, does this spell the end of attempts to regulate video game sales? >> well, the law in california was never implemented because they were concerned about this court challenge. it's now been struck down in six other states as well. the authors of the

all three women on the court dissented, along with justice stephen breyer. and justice ruth bader ginsberg shot back at scalia, saying that discrimination in the workplace is more subtle than he described. "managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware." walmart declared total victory. so, what does this ruling mean? >> the supreme court raised the bar extraordinarily high now for women and others who face discrimination in the workplace to be able to come together. >> reporter: is this a setback for women in the workplace? in congress, house democratic leader nancy pelosi says the ruling sets back the cause of equality. and listen to what we heard out on the streets today. if you had to go up against your employer in a case, would you feel that the system was on your side? >> that's a difficult one. i would have to say probably not. they have more resources for attorneys than most working people do. >> reporter: finally, what can women who face discrimination do now? well, every woman and man still has the basic right to sue

justices breyer and thomas dissented. now a panel of law professors on this term's major decisions, including freedom of speech. from the 4th circuit court of appeals annual unusual conference, this is two hours. >> i hope you will realize that we are being selective in our coverage. it is simply not possible to be combrensive. not even all the important cases will necessarily be talked about. we hope we are picking enough of them to give you a sense of what the court has been up to. i know many of you will be checking out or getting on the road. so we will conclude by noon time today. we have a very distinguished panel. i am delighted to have with us heather gurkin from yale law school. she is known for her work on election law and democratic theory. we have michael mcconnell from stanford law school. he is a former 11th circuit court judge and served in that capacity before he served in that capacity. neel segel is professor of political science and law at duke yuferte law school. he is a member of our family because he

that is kennedy, thomas, ginsburg and breyer. sca lease is a sure vote to overrule, kagen appears skept 8:00, sotomayor doesn't seem to think it's necessary to discuss meed, i think there's a real question whether meed will still be the law five years from now. not saying it definitely won't be but it's under a cloud. ok. thank you. >> mike,. >> i just want to jump in very quickly. all these types of deference and so forth may strike a lot of people in the audiences i think audience's word was thrilling. i think the technical term for this is a snood snooze. but they really are, i want to add, i think they >> very important because it is arguments over these questions of deference in which the very idea of separation of powers and the rule of law are worked out in the context of the administrative stay. and i would just like to at least maybe caution against assuming that justice scalia's new campaign against aur deference is over just because he lost this particular term. justice scalia is a very smart guy and he is very persist

. >> justice stephen breyer, justice ruth bader ginsburg, justice anthony kenny and justice elena kagan. >> so kennedy was the key point. >> he was the swing vote and it is interesting to note that he has always in the criminal context, particularly the death penalty, he has had a special solicitude for the problems of youth juveniles in the criminal justice system. >> suarez: what did the dissint ares have to say and who was their leader. >> justice alice-- alito was the main dissent joined by anthony scalia and clarence thomas. he said miranda was a bright line rule for police, something that was easy to apply. and when you looked at whether someone was in custody it was an objective analysis. you didn't bring in subjective factors like age. he felt that the majority hadn't shown why age was different from say education, intelligence. he said that he felt also that what was going to happen here was that you would soon see defense lawyers and maybe even prosecutors arguing in cases in trials that other factors, personal characteristics were important in determining custody. he also fel

i i'll read you the dissenting opinion by justice breyer.n my view the first amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here, a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive video games. he goes on to say which they more than reasonably fear pose only the risk of harm to those children. very interesting ruling and one many states will be watching to see where they can and cannot draw their own lines in terms of consumer protection and bottom line, a very big win for the gaming industry, suzanne. >> kate baldwin, thank you very much. >>> the casey anthony murder trial is back in session, after the judge rules she is competent to stand trial. i'm going to talk to a criminal defense attorney about the latest drama in this riveting case. [ male announcer ] you've reached the age where you don't back down from a challenge. this is the age of knowing how to make things happen. so, why would you let something like erectile dysfunction get in your way? isn't it time you talked to ? 20 million

i think it is a response, and implicit response to justice breyer. and i think i can quote it. he says the constitution does not embody herbert spencer's social ethics. a famous line from the justice holmes. and he says, "but it does have a first amendment. i think it can lead the's point is that the first amendment protect speech. this is speech. >> there was another case on the docket this term, a first amendment case. is that another example of defining in and finding out? you had the court concerned they might open the floodgate to retaliations. it is being seen as first amendment issues. that seemed a little like an example of the nevada case, an exception to the general tack with the first amendment. they seem not to want to bring that conduct within the scope of the first amendment. >> it is conceptually one of the most interesting cases of the term. this was brought under the petition clause. there are precious few supreme court cases ever under the petition cause. this is a case in which by all rights, everyone agrees the plaintiff would have lost with the free speech

the current justices who support this approach include justice anthony kennedy, justice breyer, and i think justice society mayor -- society -- sot omayor. the liberalling of the supreme court. cass sunstein wrote a paper on this, and i don't think it's a bad idea as long as it's done in a prudent and narrow way so just so everybody understands, this controversy arose because high profile cases, death punishment cases, for example, the supreme court, and i think usually justice kennedy said, well, this particular practice like executing people who committed crimes is juvenile and people who are mentally retarded, yeah, the united states does this, but no other country. we should take into account the norms as they prevail in other countries, and, this upset a lot of people, especially people who supported the death penalty partly because this methodology was introduced in such high profile cases that it was instantly controversial and it's also intentioned with originalism, the idea to interpret the constitution according to the understanding at the time it was ratified, but the fact

national partnership and from everything we have seen with the general public, there is a role for breyer. there's plenty more for individuals and businesses to do on their own. but there is a role for government. host: what do you think about this? guest: i would disagree with that, but i think this person races that important. , which is, the states are often -- raises an important point, which is that the states are often playing an important role. state workers can buy insurance through a state system to cover the birth of a new child. it is not a freebie, but they can buy insurance to pay for a new child, a sick child, a sick parent or themselves. it can be more efficient for employers who may not operate in many states. -- who may operate in many states. by putting these things in place, it will enable workers, and women workers in particular, to stay in the workforce. for employers to attract and retain valuable employees. and that is the overall goal. host: here's a comment on twitter. speaking of the healthy families act, it was reintroduced in congress just last month from the d

justice breyer was interviewed at the beginning of his term in the fall and he was asked this very question. he said i really don't think so and he said he had gone back and looked at the cases from recent terms and compared them to prior terms end really didn't see a difference in the percentage of cases decided either way. >> professor hart? >> i think is a little more public hated them corporation wins all the time. obviously there are lots of examples where corporations lose cases. i do think if you look at the trend over the past few years it is very clear that the majority of the court and it is consistently the same majority is taking it very restrictive view about what it's -- what kind of cases of thing should be permitted to go to the court and i think that is the most concerning thing is that procedural barriers are being set up that weren't set up at the rules, weren't set up by statute that are being created as a policy judgment by the majority on the court that limit the ability of people to bring their claims into court and that really changes our legal system in ways that wh

i think it is a response, and implicit response to justice breyer. and i think i can quote it. he says the constitution does not embody herbert spencer's social ethics. a famous line from the justice holmes. and he says, "but it does have a first amendment. i think it can lead the's point is that the first amendment protect speech. this is speech. >> there was another case on the docket this term, a first amendment case. is that another example of defining in and finding out? you had the court concerned they might open the floodgate to retaliations. it is being seen as first amendment issues. that seemed a little like an example of the nevada case, an exception to the general tack with the first amendment. they seem not to want to bring that conduct within the scope of the first amendment. >> it is conceptually one of the most interesting cases of the term. this was brought under the petition clause. there are precious few supreme court cases ever under the petition cause. this is a case in which by all rights, everyone agrees the plaintiff would have lost with the free speech

justice breyer is interviewed at the beginning of this term in the fall and the fall in the recesses very question. he gone and looked at the cases from recent times and prior terms and really didn't see a difference in the percentage of cases decided either way. >> i think it's a little more complicated than corporation wins all the time. obviously, lots of examples where corporations lose cases. i think if you look at the trend over the past two years, it is very clear the majority on the court inconsistently with the majority of teaching at or restrict a few about what it thinks -- what kinds of cases should be permitted to go into the coors and that is the most disturbing case that procedural barriers are set up to what by the rules, were set by statues created as a policy judgment -itis majority on the court that limited ability of people to bring claims into court and that really changes or the ecosystem in ways that whether the corporation wins or loses in any given case can the people and allowed to to bring cases forward and that's a troubling trend. >> repressor alt. >> i d

the current justices who support this approach include justice anthony kennedy, justice breyer, um, and i think justice society my or your -- sotomayor. she said she supported this approach and maybe one or two others. but, basically, the liberal wing of the supreme court. um, cass sunstein and i wrote a paper about, this is one of the papers we wrote. and, you know, i don't think it's a bad idea as long as it's done in a prudent and narrow way. so just so everybody understands, this controversy arose because certain very high-profile cases, death penalty cases, for example, the supreme court -- and i think usually justice kennedy -- would say, well, you know, this particular practice like, you know, executing people who committed crimes as juveniles or executing people who are mentally retarded, this is something the united states does, but no other country in the world does this. so in interpreting the eighth amendment which bans cruel and unusual punishment, we should take into account the norms as they prevail in other countries. and, you know, this upset a lot of people, especially

in his past life before coming to these positions he also clerked for justice stephen breyer on the supreme court and was a rhodes scholar at oxford. he will talk to us on american foreign policies in age of uncertainties. for those of you who are here this morning this fits nicely with our conference theme on risks and rewards and i'm sure he will touch on topics related to middle east and afghanistan and tradeoffs involved we were talking about earlier. so please join me in welcoming jake sullivan. [applause] >> thanks, nora. good afternoon. at least one person said good afternoon. it's a privilege for me to be here to help celebrate the fifth anniversary for the center of new american security. i count myself as one many members of the obama administration an consumer of center's products. i worked very closely with some of your most distinguished alumni. derek and i are constant partners in crime and no one better on asian policy than kirk campbell but no one more interesting or entertaining to travel with. today i have a modest objective which is to share some sense of what's preoccupy