supreme court. one thing is life tenure for the court judges. they all of either a term of years or in age limit and so scholars and politicians started to scratch their heads and say the life tenure on the supreme court really most serves the interest of the public. for one thing, if the had a term of years or age limit i think we wouldn't have -- it would certainly lower the temperature of the confirmation battles because you knew you wouldn't be investing in somebody would be there for 30 or 35 years long, long of lasting not only the president july administration, but the era in which the nomination occurred and things change a lot from one decade to another in terms of what's important and how we see things. i just bring this to your attention to the delight not have heard of it because it is still in the legal literature but it's interesting to see and try to think a little bit outside of the box do we have the best of all systems and the best of all possible worlds command of course the answer is not necessarily. it can always be more per

he has given 25 cases before the supreme court. he teaches supreme court litigation. in 2003 he started a blogger that makes my life so much easier. the national law journal named him one of the most influential lawyers of the decades. gq named him one of the most of the influential people in washington. the national law journal twice named him under 40. ec were this is going. in 50 years we can -- you see where this is going. in 50 years weekend feel hill, and one of the top lawyers under 100. finally, david savage has been a supreme court correspondent for the los angeles time since 1986. he has had an excellent vantage point from which to observe the actions and changes over three decades. he is author of the supreme court which covered the efforts of the first bush administrations. he ao writes a monthly column and offers regular legal commentary. david to is not a lawyer and you're up in the pittsburgh area. -- who grew up in the pittsburgh area. >> thank you. it is great to be here to talk about the upcoming supreme court term. we have already had one mystery so

court. the court returns with a docket packed with high profile cases and others likely to be heard. it's strangely almost entirely absent from the presidential campaign. it becomes alarming when you look at the age of the justices. 76, 76, 74, and the oldest is 79 years old. let's not forget she's the fifth vote to uphold a decision in roe v. wade. >> i hope to appoint justices to the supreme court that will follow the law and the constitution. it will be my impression they will reverse row v. wade. >> it's very likely the next president of the united states will appoint several justices to the supreme court. that often is the most lasting legacy of an entire presidency. i find it strange, given the amount of coverage that citizens united has got, i found if i'm traveling or speaking to groups reporting, among progressive folks, everyone knows citizens unite and hates them. everyone knows the court gave us citizens united, the court upheld the piece of legislation not just for this presiden

supreme court. it's one you'll not want to miss -- and not because it opens with an article jointly written by me and the historian bernard weisberger. our mission was simply to remind the reader of what's obvious. that because of the partisan gridlock paralyzing both president and congress, more than ever the court has become the most powerful branch of government, and the center of a controversy which may shape the fate of democracy for generations to come. with me to talk about this is "the nation" magazine's editor and publisher katrina vanden heuvel. she's a frequent presence on the talk news shows and a familiar byline in major publications. she has been one of those out in front, calling the president to task for orphaning his values and promises, as can be seen in her most recent book, "the change i believe in: fighting for progress in the age of obama." the prolific jamie raskin also joins us. one of the country's leading scholars on constitutional law, he teaches at american university and

he outlines the case's path to the court, how it was argued in court, and his surprise in the court's decision. also from the cato institute, this is just over one hour. >> i want to welcome those of you who just joined us for the simon lecture. i am walt -- roger pilon. i want to welcome those in the c-span audience, who might have just joined us for this sign and lecture. each year, we conclude our constitution day conference with the annual lecture named in honor of the late ken simon, a pittsburgh engineering, an entrepreneur and industrialist who was a great friend of liberty and the cato institute, devoted to furthering the thought of the american founders. this series has brought a distinguished group of justices, legal scholars to the podium to discuss in doing constitutional issues. our first simon lecture was on constitutionalism, and it was given by douglas h. ginsburg, then the chief judge of the d.c. circuit. since then, lectures have covered subjects ranging from property rights to religious liberty, the ninth amendment, progressivism and more, including privacy, the sub

lower courts here. i think this is the last time that the supreme court will engage the issue for some time. but states still have an important role when it comes to the regulation of immigration, and i think what we're going to see, um, evolving here is a scheme of negotiated -- [inaudible] and there are two contexts in which this is already playing out. one is something along the lines of the utah compact model. so utah enacted a series of measures which had an enforcement side but which also put on the table the possibility of a state-initiated guest worker program. so some balance in the mix in a way that not implausibly could garner federal approval. so federal approval is now necessary for such initiatives, but i think given the pressure that's coming from below that that approval is possible, and then finally we're already seeing this play out in the context of the obama administration's executive action, in effect adopting a dream act-type version prosecutorial discretion. whether they get drive

surveillance court here in d.c.and get permission when they wanted to do wiretapping for national security purpose to give sworn intelligence information. this is way of making sure that the court, there was a court that had to check and had a role in reviewing the government's effort to do this wiretapping which they ended up using in in the password it hadn't been in any court ruled. the problem with the statute as it was designed back in 1978 is that congress tried to limit it so that it focused on communications inside the united states and it was designed in a way that it didn't require going to the court and the national security agency or others who are trying to wiretap people outside the united states. the problem is that in defining the parameters of what communications would require and what surveillance is required and which ones didn't the statute referred to the technology of the time as communications that were wired in communications over radio, the satellite technology. the problem is in 1978 we see

supreme court. the author exam of the recent addition of the four justices in the past five years and how it has affected the court's decisions on the numerous cases including its recent ruling on health care. it's about an hour. [applause] thank you. hello, everybody. so excited to be here in philadelphia. i know that is the usual pandering that goes on by the speakers but in my case it happens to be true. i am not myself from philadelphia, but my dad was at the high school. [applause] depending has just begun. curtis institute. i don't know if we have any more here and he went to temple as well and he taught me that the streets were paved and i have enjoyed my visit ever since. i'm really happy to be talking about the oath. italy cannot today's ago. so far, so good. it's exciting. you work on these books and people like to lead them. it's exciting to the answer, but the start by asking the first question that i know is on your mind, which is who is your favorite justice? [laughter] it's not elena

the decision was a bold and the court of appeals. and the supreme court said, use two to late. don't you see the losses? you have 180 days from the discriminatory incident to file your lawsuit. 180 days from the first time her pay slipped? women who are breaking new ground don't want to rock the boat. they also know that, if they sue that early on, the defense will be that it had nothing to do with her being a woman. she just did not perform as well as the men. when year after year she gets good performance ratings and is even rewarded as one of the top performance, that defense is no longer available could also, many employers to nine give out salary figures. -- also, many employers do not give out salary figures. so how would she know? every time she got a paycheck in which her salary reflected discrimination every month the discrimination is renewed. so she would have 180 days from each paycheck to begin her lawsuit. the experience that lily ledbetter had is something common to women of her generation and my generation. yet the court interpreted these 180 days to run from th

. >> rose: he thought the court -- >> out of -- that. >> rose:. >> that the court was becoming, seen as a political body, rather than a judicial body, you know, look there is always a fine to nonexistent line between law and politics and the justices all know that, but when you come to decisions like bush v gore, like citizens united and potentially like this case, the line was so evanescent and the division on the court so obvious, remember look at the change on the supreme court, who were the last three justices to leave? o'connor, stevens, souter, all moderate republicans, their like are not seen on the supreme court anymore just like they are not seen in the united states congress anymore. this is a court like this is a country, polarized between democrats and republicans. if the that is just a fact about the supreme court and it makes the justices uncomfortable, especially the chief justice and that is in part why he did what he did. >> rose: does kennedy command the sense he is the new sandra day o'connor or not. >> he. >> kennedy is a mercurial figure, some refer to him as a m

to remake the high court. he also writes a month the column and offers regular legal commentary on the talk of the nation. david for good or ill is not a lawyer grew up in the pittsburgh area and holds degrees from umc and northwestern. we'll start with ken. >> well, thank you. it's great to be a cato to talk about the upcoming supreme court term. i guess a birdie had one mystery solved because now we know why ilya board this zoo today. i don't think much of that because your suit has to be visible from outer space in order to be a contender. [laughter] but in any event, here i was thinking i was somehow privileged to be asked to write to preview for the supreme court reviewed this year when in fact i was simply asked because they happen to be ilya's girlfriends boss. in any event, notwithstanding that it was indeed a privilege to have the chance to write the preview with my colleague, jamie mcdonnell who clerked for the chief justice at go years ago and i certainly commend itu and i can assure you that is bec

courts.really old statute, and the basis for the lawsuit has to be a violation by some party of a basic principle of international law or treaty in which the united states has subscribe. the court of appeals decided this case, which is the nigeria versus the overseas oil company, on the ground that the statute doesn't apply to companies, and the supreme court agreed to decide last time the interesting question which is can you bring the alien tort suits against company, and then aves apparent there was another, perhaps bigger issue lurking in the case, and that is does the statute apply extraterritorially? this is a case brought by foreigners against the foreign company about something that happened overseas, and the supreme court was asked to decide does this statute become the ordinary presumption in american law that it applies to stuff that happens here, and if congress wants it to apply to stuff that happens in other places or exclusively happens in other places says so expressly. the su

to block it in the courts. that is not matter if it was there for a year or a day. that is not an equal protection violation. anything you can never take it a way. he says it is not a one-way ratchet. engine cannot take it away. that really only applies to the situation in california. the supreme court has not made its call. possible they will take it to shoot them down. if they approve it, and they probably would let it stands. it is such a quirky opinion that it will not have that brought up an effect. the ninth circuit is not viewed by others as a very controlling kind of precedence. there is an arguably controlling pace. it is a summary of a similar challenge to minnesota laws. the courts really gave this and did not consider it. the supreme court may be concerned that those are the main cases. i will turn to the voting rights act that has another set of cases. they have two main sections that are an interest. the first prevent voter discrimination. section 5 was designed to prevent it from having new worke

how about lower courts? i think many more district courts would invalidate this law the move favorably on the previous challenges. the rulings would likely be upheld. doctrines constrained us. we might like to have contested the insurance company regulations. we were definitively foreclosed from such an argument by the 1944 case. changes and the justices could negate this decision but that could happen with any doctrine. i ask any litigant whether doctrine's matter so long as the doctrines mandate. we will now have an election to decide the ultimate fate of obama care. this election should also be about who gets elected to serve on the supreme court. should a republican conservative continue to put on supreme court judges or should republicans nominate constitutional conservatives who believe it is not good for justices to be enforced and -- in the constitution. should bevetted for the willingness to enforce them meaning. mason was given a wonderful lesson in constitutional law, the enumerated powers that li

the court has attached some real, yachts into the esm. do they succeed in keeping parliament in the political loop when it comes to any for the bailout? >> absolutely. i think that is clear from the conditions the court has set before the treaty can be ratified. these two key conditions -- they say germany possible liability must not rise above the 190 billion euros the authorized capital stock agreed to the initial arrangements without the consent of parliament. references to secrecy and a treaty must not mean the german parliament is not properly informed. what parliamentarians here are trying to work out is how these conditions can be implemented and the talk is of attaching a particle text to the treaty text the german president would sign. what is not clear is whether to do that would require a full debate of both houses of parliament. if so, it could slow down the process of the government is keen to get the stability mechanism up and running very soon. the plan is to do it in october. >> are these conditions enough to satisfy the p

supreme court. hughes was no longer on the court.but roosevelt appointees were great libera read william douglas. felix frankfurter. why? because they were patriots. and they thought it was important, the military told him there was a danger on the west coast from sabotage, from japanese-americans, they were inclined to defer to the military on that. terrible decision. it was a terrible decision during world war ii. this was after hughes was no longer chief justice. but generally speaking, the court tends to downgrade civil rights and liberties in times of war. certainly, that was the case of world war ii, because, the national security is the number one issue, i think. >> [inaudible question] >> yes, but the great challenge and the growth displacement was of japanese-americans. and that was something the court rendered several decisions, one of them was the most important was the karl marx decision in which they basically gave the military the liberty to deprive japanese-americans of their liberties. >> returning to the similarities

supreme court and the u.s. supreme court heard arguments in the case. they did something very unusual, which is, they actually said to the parties to my we want to consider a broader question. go back and we would like for you to brief not just this question of does it apply to corporations, but the much more broad question of does it apply extraterritorial yet all? does it apply to axe that happen in the land of foreign sovereigns and all? it is very unusual for the court task the parties to brief a bigger issue than that which was rich elite briefed by the court. and so now the parties are arguing about whether this applies extraterritorial the and all. the sheer fact that the court did that strongly suggests that the court is nervous about the statute and is wanting to cut back on its scope. i think everybody thinks that. the big question is how far will they go. so the solicitor general says, you should be very cautious about extending it extraterritorial lee. it does not usually extend, but leave the door open. it might sometimes applied. and in pa

and the court does not like that. the court does not like letting the bad guy go free. if you change the facts about the guy with the drugs in the car and you make it a dead body, if the search is bad, the court does not like say, oh, sorry, we will send you on your way and here is your dead body back. [laughter] they don't like to do that. it puts pressure on the doctrine and it makes them want to say not a search or it is reasonable. >> isn't that what habeas corpus means? [laughter] >> exactly. so those are the two dogs sniffing cases. the third case is kiobal. i am nervous talking about this because there are at least 20 people in the room or more know more about this. it is the alien tort statute. it grants district court's jurisdiction on any civil tax by an alien. this is a very old statute enacted by the first congress. but it sat dormant for 170 odd years. then some civil rights type folks picked it up and human rights type folks and started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign, the defendant is foreign, and the tort took place in some foreign place

the budget debate coinciding with the constitutional court's debate on the esm. the inquiry -- and certain future of europe is in states like grease makes things difficult enough. germany says for the fun to work, troubled countries must implement reforms. >> without such reforms, nothing is going to happen in the member states. that is called conditionality. conditionality is an indispensable requirement for every european aid program. that is in that treaty. >> that government says germany's proposed budget for 2013 is solid. revenues are expected to reach 283 billion euros compared to expenditures of 302 billion. that would amount to a debt of 19 billion next year, but that is down from this year's 32 billion. >> germany has become much more shock resistant to. our power of resistance to such events has grown. >> but that is not enough to offset the opposition's concerns. >> your plans assume there will be no crises or downturn between now and 2016. who can believe or assume that? >> they can only hope. if the esm goes ahead, germany will be all -- will be lia

court new term starts october 1st. this one hour and 15 minute discussion was part of a forum hosted by the cato institute here in washington earlier this week. >> our conference concludes with a look ahead to october term 2012. the court's docket as of today is a bit sparse, but not without have to. indeed, were it not for last terms obamacare and the sv1070 cases you could say the coming term would be the term of the decade. the first to sittings the court will hear cases on property rights, racial preferences and higher education, and the fourth amendment as well as a follow-up to the class-action blockbuster from a couple years ago, wal-mart for nurses do. cato followed the cases as well as in several other but if granted would be high profile as well. challenges to section 5 of the voting rights act and the scope of the treaty power, for example. then the multiple looming cases relating to a marriage and the defensive marriage act. in short, if you thought you were getting a breather this year, i'm sorry to disapp

in recent months have criticized the court as being a politicized court but he really enrages me to hear people refer to it as a politicized court it enrages them really according to scalia there's no way the spring court has told us lives that are nuts and raging but then in the same interview thirty seconds later scalia launches into a political rant against democrats. that when you have a democratic party which has been trying for years to appoint people who approve of roe versus wade which means people who are not originalists who do not stick to the text who believe in substantive due process or whatever those dang democrats appointing judges for one sole purpose stop all roe v wade school his partisan attacks are exactly why too many americans think the supreme court is to politicize it also doesn't help that scalia is the guy who went on a hunting trip back in two thousand and five with republican vice president dick cheney right before deciding to hear a case against dick cheney and then ruling in favor of the republican dick cheney scalia also went on a hunting trip with the dea

file was sent to the appeals court of texas. i thought we had so much evidence there is no way that we can. and then we basically was executed for late february twenty first two thousand and two. you know it was a sense of relief you know it's like all our bureaus exhausted we have a very left with some of the supreme court and you know live in order afterwards like. this it's like you know. in the beginning of two thousand and two this was the last chance the u.s. supreme court in washington is the highest in the land it is the only one capable of revoking a state's made decision each year the supreme court's receives around one thousand man's from death row inmates and only two or three are accepted for thomas miller's defense a true race against death started so as a bow it was less than a week before the execution and the supreme court. announced that it would hear the case that was a huge relief. convinced there was discrimination during the trial the supreme court demanded that the death sentence be reexamined but the tech

but he has asked the constitutional court to -- >> he has asked the constitutional court to delay its decision. >> these new tools were championed by the german chancellor herself. >> the court is reviewing its request that it review its long- awaited ruling on whether to let it bailout fund pass into law. peter gauweiler file the request in light of the central bank's announcement that it will buy unlimited amounts of bonds from troubled eurozone countries. for the far left, too, it is reason for a rethink. >> if the european central bank goes this way, we will not need a bailout mechanism. the bank itself will do the bailing out. it will not have to consult any parliament. >> the ecb's decision to buy barnes has raised fears that national parliaments -- buy bonds has raised fears that national parliaments will be sidelined. the president of the german parliament try to ease those fears. >> whatever justifiable objections may be raised regarding individual measures, what is certain is that it will definitely remain subject to parliamentary debate and consideration. >> germany's oppos

if the appellate court upholds this rule and then it will go to the supreme court assuming the obama administration would challenge an appellate court decision that to. back to judge forests decision. getting into the mind of the administration why do you think this provision was so important to the why is the obama that why they put it in there in the first place and why are they fighting to keep it. well the assault on civil liberties under the obama administration has been more egregious them under george w. bush the track record of the obama administration is literally abysmal refusal to restore it is corpus interpretation of the two thousand and one authorization to use military force act as giving the executive the right to carry out assassinations of american citizens the yemeni cleric of course i'm going to lockey and sixteen year old son two weeks later the use of espionage act six times to shut down whistleblowers who exposed were crimes that govern our government malfeasance . the supporting of the fires amendment act which retroactively made illegal what under our constit

court opening. meaning we were trying to do it in a way where we could get the first marriage under the bell before the courts came in to stop us. what we didn't know was what we didn't know. it's going about things and not knowing the consequences. we had to quickly organize a way to get through the enormity of requests to get married >> later that year, the california supreme court ruled they were void. >> the law in this case worked. we challenged the law and went up the ranks and eventually the supreme court said stop and we stop. there was a great sense of despair in some sense, but hopefulness that we would live to fight another day and in spite of those licenses be voided and the fact there was disappointment and we had to stop and everything we had done had been taken a way as well. i think people lived with the expectation that they may see what they now have seen. i don't think many of us thought it would happen so quickly. >> after years of working it's way through the california system.

(laughter) >> that's in the french courts, not the u.s. courts so i don't think so. i think the big case about affirmative action and citizens united. your big case. >> stephen: my favorite case! established super pacs. >> but i think they are going to go farther. >> stephen: go farther? what is it i can't do legally now? i run a cock fighting ring out of an orphanage. (laughter) is that not legal yet because i should talk to a lawyer. >> they are going to, i think, eventually, maybe not this year, allow direct contributions to campaigns unlimited. you have to have your super pac, which is at least fictionally separate or notionally separate. >separate. >> stephen: it is absolutely separate from something. >> soon i think you'll be able to give money directly to candidates. the limits on how much you can give i think they may be in jeopardy and corporations may be able to give campaigns-- directly to campaigns again. >> stephen: what does another obama term look like for the supreme court? >> well, there are four justices in their 70s now. ruth ginsburg is 79. she's

but the supreme court upheld it anyway. they thought nearly the threat was enough to justify a voter id law. only that threat doesn't exist. according to the brendonsen ter who released research in 2007 said allegations of voter fraud, especially polling place impersonation fraud almost always prove to be inflated or inaccurate. in truth, the mat sere that voter fraud votes knowingly cast by ineligible people is false. so our law finds itself in a crisis. it's whole reason for being is a myth. but what is real is -- more than one million people, more than 12% of pennsylvania voters that voted in 2008, more than 750,000 voters, lack a valid photo id under the new law. and those least likely to have valid identification, aren't you a diverse group. african-americans, latinos, the poor. they all have a tendency to vote for the democratic party. which brings me to the beginning. the pennsylvania law grew up to attract national attention, but it had humble beginnings in a republican dominated state legislature. before 2010, the

court of appeals. and he went on to serve seat chief counsel of the subcommittee on the constitution and property rights is subject today is intriguing lead in title october term 2011, a constitutional moment. please welcome paul clement. [applause] >> thank you for the kind introduction. great to see the cato institute. is an honor to be here at the podium presenting some thoughts on october of 2011. constitutional moment. as roger alluded to i have the distinct pleasure of arguing the challenge to the affordable care act on behalf of 26 states, the fact that 26 states combined together in a challenge against the federal statute is a remarkable development and the case itself was remarkable in almost every respect. i want to talk principally about that case and the court's decision. certainly i am under no illusions that there is anything left to be said about the health care case. it has been as analyze as any case in recent memory and that is consistent with this entire case. this case i have been i

, new mexico we have a shift, i think in the membership of the court, it's impossible to call it a courte left or to the right. >> for the opinions that could be close, 5-4 decisions will also -- who's the swing vote in some of the toughest cases. >>> do you think you could feed yourself for a week on just $29? phoenix mayor greg stanton wanted to know what that was like. he live ed on $29s a week. >> there's too often stereotyping that goes on about people living on food stamps. they don't want to be on food stamps. these are people that need to be supported during these times and when the economy comes roaring back and it's in the process of doing so, i'm an optimist, i think they're going to be a big part of the future of our economy, so number one, don't present negative stereotypes for people who happen to be living on food stamps, number two, there's a lot of families with children who are going through these difficult times and need our help. so i'm telling people, if you want to support me and what i did, what you can do is donate money to local food banks that help to supment. >