that is i think -- >> you're quarreling with justice breyer. obviously, you are. >> yes. >> why are you quarreling? it's not enough for you for us to say a true threat is when you intend to put another person -- >> in fear. >> in fear or you know that your words will cause a reasonable person to feel fear. you're quarreling with that formulation. >> that's right. >> you want something broader? >> what we want is a standard that holds accountable people for the ordinary, natural meaning of the words that they say in context -- >> well, but in context is right. what is it? is it a reasonable person? the examples that were given of teenagers on the internet. or is it a reasonable teenager on the internet? >> if there is such a thing. [ laughter ] sorry, chief justice. the context that was used under the jury instruction in this case, and i think it's an appropriate one it's more protective of the defendant perhaps than a reasonable listener approach is a reasonable speaker approach. whether he would foresee that a person to whom the communication

chief justice and may it please the court justice breyer, you are exactly correct.ner believed that the policy that u.p.s. applied, which was to provide accommodations to employees who are injured on the job but not provide accommodations to any employees who sustain a condition incurred off the job, she could have brought a disparate impact claim. we believe she would not have succeeded. but she could have and she did not. she attempted to bring one late in the day. it was dismissed by the district court because it had not been exhausted. >> miss halligan can we talk about the claim she did bring? >> yes. >> you are reading the statute. it basically makes everything ( z after the semicolon completely superfluous. and i think you would agree with that >> absolutely not, your honor. the reading we propose is very straightforward. what congress said in the second clause, the key words are the same as other persons. what other means is simply distinct from whatever is mentioned first. so employers have to treat pregnant employees the same as some distinct group of nonp

[applause] >> justice breyer, thank you very much for taking the time -- >> thank you. >> to do this. we're going to talk about the magna carta, but before we do so, i'd like to talk about a few other things because we rarely get a chance to interview a justice of the supreme court. since i rarely get this opportunity, let me take advantage of it now and say that when you grew up, you grew up in california and went to stanford and harvard law school, but did you always intend to be a law professor and then want to be a judge? how did that come about -- to be a judge? >> i wanted to go into law. my father was a lawyer. you may not remember that -- you are not old enough -- but there was a time when you use to do what your parents said. [laughter] completely foreign to this entire audience, such an idea, but you as a lawyer and then as far as a judge is concerned, for any lawyer a federal judge lightning has to strike. it really does. and then to be on the supreme court, it has to strike twice in the same place. >> you and i worked on capitol hill at the same time. i was working briefly

you are the judge did justice stephen breyer and he says that they see the constitution is primarily the constitution of the democracy enabling the legislation is a very honorable company there but it reminds us that really the judge, like justice breyer and braced that judicial restraint and there is a position among the conservatives became ducal yourself a judicial activist who unapologetically used the court to strike down much of the regulatory state and the judicial restraint and i think even justice thomas rejected the idea so you don't have a single ally except marsenburg addicted to constitution of liberty but that doesn't embrace the idea of the anonymity of natural rights being enforced so i ask you along with the leading critics you have for reasons why this would be constitutionally disastrous and it isn't merited by the constitution once you give us some of those reasons. >> i don't think of myself as an advocate of judicial restraint necessarily because if you look at sort of the mistakes the supreme court has made so we are trying to figure out what should the court t

justice breyer said why should we say it's not available under this particular law and the texas lawyertwo arguments. he said this t plain language of the federal law doesn't say it's available. it only addresses intentional discrimination, not impact discrimination. also, he said if governments and zoning officers, the banks, lenders are faced with disparate impact liability, they're going to be forced to make race-conscious decisions. on the other side, we heard arguments, the solicitor general of the united states and the lawyer for the project that's sued defended the use of these claims. chief justice roberts and justice ali alito and scalia had problems with the claim. chief justice roberts said how do you tell whether there's a good or a bad impact? maybe the community wants development because the neighborhood is blighted and this is a community that's predominantly minority or there's a community that wants to be integrated. so how do you tell? the solicitor general of the united states said this is the disparate impact process, it's played out in court. the agency has to come

. >> isn't the proof of the pudding in what justice breyer is saying in the statistics? one of the briefs mentioned that those candidates who can fundraise personally do appreciably better in collecting money than the candidates who have to go through a committee. so what would be the difference, other than the fact that there is some form of personal coercion in the presence of the judge asking for the money? >> i don't think so, your honor. i think the difference can -- i mean, obviously i don't know about where the statistics come from, but even assuming that the statistics are right, it seems to me in a system where we vote for a person, a message from that person that combines what they stand for with the request for a contribution makes that request for a contribution more effective, not because it's coercive, but because it's tied to what the person stands for, and those parts of the message are effective when they come from the person themselves. >> i think, i think you'd find the same statistics true with respect to political candidates, that they do much better

[laughter] a couple of people from california, justice kennedy is from california and justice breyerw up there. and then a lot for easterners, a lot of new yorkers specifically. justice thomas from georgia and justice -- and the chief justices from the midwest. i got a lot of law schools. not just the harvard once. [laughter] if people ask me about this all of the time and you can get people think, well, how about us? shouldn't we have access to this institution and should we feel as though this institution is seeking -- speaking to us? i think that is important. i do not think any of these metrics of diversity have all that much to deal with how we decide cases. i think it's pretty rare that they do. the face who present to the world, i think people should think about how their government institutions a look to the world and whether they reflect the diversity of our country and diversity of our citizenry. this is one way in which this court clearly does not. and you would -- i think hope for it to be different from i am putting together funny story. i hope senator reed was not mind

and this is the thing that bothered justice breyer in particular.so bothered justice ginsburg. that is saying there is an inherent coercive power when a judge asks for money. this is the point he made through a number of questions. this is the kind of thing that the state is trying to prohibit here. and if in fact the candidate is the most effective person in asking for money that would be one reason for that. another could be many reasons why that might be true. but to me that suggests that there is something -- an interest here in preventing judges from using their roles to gain in the electoral setting. on the other hand, when you look at what is allowed when you look at the fact that the best friend who happens to be the campaign manager can write the same letter and send it, and send a list, and then the judge can write thank you notes and be aware of who contributed arnd more importantly who didn't contribute the canon does nothing to support the interest of what florida is trying to resolve. all it does is restrict candidates' speech. when it

. >> she had to crawl over tree tops, breyer patches, weeds deep ditches.he had to do this in the dark without moonlight. she couldn't see a house light and she took the best route she could have took. and she did this in socked feet. and shorts. >> kent murphy was the first to spot the downed plane upside down. >> some people you know don't believe in miracles. i think it's luck stuff like that, to me it's a miracle. >> sailor is in the second grade, a dancer her family says. her sister piper was such a good soccer player, she played on the boys team. her cousin sierra also loved to dance, she was my best friend. ♪ >> in the family's hometown of nashville, illinois somber sunday services. >> it's a tragedy. >> hope the guardian angels stay with the whole family. >> federal investigators have moved the crash's debris. they'll try to determine where sailor was sitting in the plane. she may have been in the back row on the passenger side. it's not clear how only she survived. >> the girl is now with other family members, the ntsb will release its initial repo

and just to go back to justice breyer, your question about coercion, i think it's important to separate coercion and quid pro quo because they get mixed up. quid pro quo and preventing the appearance of quid pro quo corruption is an interest the court has found compelling with respect to all elected officials. so i think if you expect accept my colleague's argument that preventing the appearance of quid pro quo corruption is sufficient to ban solicitation then there's no reason why or florida couldn't say, such a great idea, we're going to apply it with respect to legislators i think you the focus here, i think, really ends up being on coercion. >> that's not -- >> the preventing of corruption. >> i'm sorry, your opposite party did make the point that the legislative process presumes influence and presumes coercion, putting the arm on people to help you get into office to maintain a position that you've promised you'd maintain. but that's not the focus of a judicial election. >> well, i want somewhere -- >> can you point to -- >> i think corruption -- >> i hope you don't want someone wh

supreme court justice stephen breyer is entered by the cofounder of the carlyle group about the importance of the magna carta on its 800

>> i'd like to make two points in response justice breyer.st about the title 7 claim, and the second about this type of an anti-discrimination provision. with respect to the first i think it's helpful to differentiate between a direct claim of#1x discrimination versus a claim proven through the mcdonald douglas framework. we think in order to prove a direct claim without going through the mcdonald douglas burden shifting analysis, what you've got to show is that an employer offers an accommodation to a significant class of employees, and that that accommodationuva3Ñ fails the test i described earlier. it's got to be a significant class. now, we think that's this case. we think it's going to be most cases. but in the kinds of examples that your honor identified the one guy driving across the mountain, for example, i think you would have two issues there. first, when it's one person, you're not going to be able@ój make a direct case. you go through mcdonald douglas and the employer may well have an explanation for that accommodation that would

then, on the other hand, you had some of the court's more liberal justices like justice breyer and sotomayor saying they aren't like other political offices. judicial candidates are supposed to be neutral andism parable. so you saw the divide playing out as the florida bar defended the rules saying we're trying to eliminate the direct link between the judicial candidate and the contributor. that is a link that creates either the appearance or actual corruption, and it diminishes public confidence in the judiciary. >> woodruff: quickly, what piece of the constitution is at play here? >> this is the first amendment. like i said election speech, even if it involves money, is at the core of first amendment protections. >> woodruff: one other short thing i want to mention, marcia, we know the justices declined to hear a number of quick cases today but a number involve the story we've done on the "newshour" involving so-called burn pits in war zones and iraq and afghanistan where chemicals are used and the troops have experienced aftereffects of breathing in from these burn pits. >> right. >> wood

justices kagan and breyer didn't field the need to opine -- feel the need to opine one way or the other, and the reason why a corporate right was found to be in this way at this time is because of the hhs mandate that's so rare and unprecedented to force people to bend their religious beliefs to the will of the government for no particular reason. thanks. [applause] >> so ilya says my problem is rfra, and i just, i can't accept rfra. but, you know i think what ilya misses and what the court distorted was what rfra was all about. it was about creating a balance between the right of individuals to seek religious exemptions and statutes a path neutrally, generally-applicable statutes that apply to the religious and nonreligious alike. and the law prior to rfra was only a very small number of claims for religious exemptionings were mandated. -- exemptions were mandated. and what the court has done quite consciously is to create a new body of first amendment law that has no roots really in any law that has existed since our nation was founded, you know? ilya has sort of said well the governm

>> hi, i'm jenny breyer, the director of general and women's studies at uic.and we'll have our last shoutout to rutgers about rutgers alum. but there is something about what happened at that moment at rutgers. and i wanted to say it was a moment when the history of students who were interested in studying the history of sexuality, the history of gender and african-american history all got in at the same time. and we were -- we were forced and delighted, and we had many difficult conversations in those rooms. but they shaped the way we respond to one another and the respect that we have for each other's work. and it meant something. and that's something about what the historical profession needs to be thinking about. because, you know, this panel is being really beautifully tweeted and then someone pointed out it wasn't going to go in the aha 2015 tweet, you know, stream, unless it got connected. and i think that it just suggests something about how far the historical professional has to go to fully embrace intersectionalty and/or any sort of model for thinking