i do not think his confirmation to the court will change the court. i do not think you will be that different from justice scalia. he will perhaps be more conservative than justice scalia was. i would also echo using the --logy of added details adjectives in which he described neil gorsuch is writing -- gorsuch's writing. the substance of his position, .hey were assertive were radical and perhaps revolutionary. he is not one to hesitate to be theed the law -- reshape law. borrowing on the statistic of the other justices taking a little more time and moderating the town among colleagues, erwin concern. the trinity there is defenses were notable because they do not often use the rhetoric they used in those cases to challenge the majority opinion or their colleagues. judge gorsuch use that rhetoric in a most every opinion he wrote. just react to what you said. the reason the nuclear option was used for the first time by with therats filibuster -- we had other times in the past where we were on the brink with the bush administration. before, when there wa

their motions were denied in a federal district court and federal court of appeals and the supreme courtefused to hear those cases. melissa: which is not to say that the supreme court turned a deaf ear to them. the 2007 decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban, justice kennedy fights the brief for the court in upholding the ban. they receive an audience at the core in some parts. host: do you know what caused her conversion on this issue? melissa: it is my understanding she became a born-again christian and her faith is part of the shift in her view. host: let's hear a question from john watching us in evergreen park, illinois. caller: it was my understanding georgia case, where sandra never wanted an abortion. she wanted to file for a divorce, but her attorney tricked her by putting in the papers that she wanted an abortion. the second thing is talking to most gynecologists, obstetricians, they feel like the life of the mother is not at stake because we now have a cesarean c-section which can protect both the mother and the baby. if this case, roe v. wade, is rooted in griswold

i do not think his confirmation to the court will change the court. i do not think he will be that different from justice scalia. although, i also share judge kaczynski's impression that he will perhaps be more conservative than justice scalia was. in usinglso echo greg the trilogy of adjectives he used to describe gorsuch's writings. not only the frequency, but also the tone that was used. and also the substance of his .ositions .adical or revolutionary he is not has in it to reshape the law. and you know, borrowing on the statistic of the other justices , taking a little more time and may be moderating among colleagues erwin mentioned the , trinity concern. in a case i talked about, justice speier also wrote a notable dissent. those were notable because they do not often use the rhetoric they used in those cases to challenge the majority opinion or their colleagues. judge gorsuch use that rhetoric in a most every opinion he wrote. >> let me just correct -- i don't want to say correct, but let me just react to what you said. the reason the nuclear op

supreme court but all courts in our system, state court lower and federal court has the ability to -- that act of congress or state law is inconsistent with the judge's understanding of the constitution itself. now, the interesting thing about judicial review is although marbury is the first case about judicial review,8 it actually judicial review wouldn't that vigorous before the civil war. so marbury becomes in some ways more important because of stuff that happens later in our story. you look back and read some things back into marbury. sometimes perhaps it was a more narrow decision as you remember it being. >> well, you call it a story and it is a story to tell. as we begin tonight we want to introduce you to several names you'll be hearing throughout the 9 ominutes and understand the role they play in the case coming to the supreme court. let's start with the principals, john adams 1800 where was he in his political career? >> he was the incumbent president. he was elected in 1796 after serving two terms as vice president under george washington. in 1796 it was the first contes

>> i think that the court was certainly a more activist court than previous courts have been in the liberal direction. i think that the warren court was definitely seen as starting the criminal procedure revolution and created a number of cases that expanded the rights of criminal defendants. i would not say it is fair to say that all of the decisions out of that court expanded rights. i think there were a number of very significant decisions out of that court. that significantly curtailed the rights of criminal defendants in ways that have repercussions to this day and that much of the unwinding of civil liberties that we see in future courts and in the burger court and the rehnquist court and courts beyond that, they find their footing in language in the warren court. >> senator patrick leahy is the senior democrat and the senate judiciary committee. we spoke to him and other members, democrats and republicans in preparation for the series. we're going to show you a clip now from senator leahy on the impact of mapp on searches now. >> the idea that we have a blanket sweep of all of us, th

criminal state prosecution from state court into federal court. that general scenario applied in roe and doe. they took these cases to decide whether younger of applied to these cases, and might in fact not them out of court. a decisive moment comes in september of 1971 when justice black and justice harlan retire within the space of a week due to health. black ties the next week, just as harlan dies at the end of 1971. that reduces the number of justices from nine to seven. it flips the balance of the court, it empowers a temporary majority of four justices to decide the cases. because any temporary majority can decide cases. for 15 weeks, between september of 1971 and january of 1972, there are 15 weeks there when the four wanted to side is many cases as they want, as they can, and they wanted to side roe v. wade. they saw these two cases and the y decide that it is an opportunity to use them to declare a right to abortion with abortion laws. they want to do it before vacancies can be filled. they are not able to do it on that timeframe, they cr

the district court and they appealed to the united states supreme court. now today most of the cases that wind up in the supreme court are petitions for review. the court can not take the case and in many cases does not take a case that's presented to it. the court gets something like 9,000 petitions a year and winds up taking 75 cases. this was in a different era when the court had less discretion with respect to whether or not to take the case. it wasn't appeal. within the courts' jurisdiction. and the court had to decide whether they did have jurgs diction notwithstanding the earlier case that doug mentioned where the court had said, we've got nothing to say about stuff like this. >> right. so doug smith also between 1959 and 1961 there was presidential election and a change in power with president kennedy coming into office. was the kennedy administration interested in this case? >> they were very much so. as a candidate as early as 1959, john kennedy had spoken a lot about urban under representation. he authored or one of his staff members authored "t

courts. we are going to have two people who are experts in this issue. first will be larry berman. he is secretary-treasurer of the national association of immigration judges. as that suggests, he is an immigration judge and has been for 20 years. hans fromcommentor is the heritage foundation and he used to be in the justice department and civil rights and worked on election law and a variety of legal issues and has the paper upcoming on the issue of immigration courts. i'm looking forward to hearing from everybody's comments. we are going to have a q&a after that. if you want to start. >> thank you. before i begin, i want to make one a comment and we will talk about the executive office for immigration review. and last week, unfortunately, the former director juan passed. ,he was a good friend of mine for more than a decade. he was a good public servant. he died unexpectedly at a rather young age. i did want to note his passing before i began. on june 1, the government accountability office

the supreme court historical society and the supreme court fellow

courts, local courts that followed their arrest. in other words, the government could evade the 1863 law by holding military trials. lincoln's actions became the center of an intense public debate over civil liberties. in times of crisis. democrats denied and many whigs, as well denied old whigs, people not yet republicans and were only now beginning to ally with the democrats on this civil liberties issue. they denied that the war justified the suspension of protections of civil liberty, specified in the constitution. republicans union war democrats have argued that the constitution did justify these kinds of suspenses and the issue was debated in congress in newspapers, in pamphlets in, stump speeches. democrats made it the central issue of the elections of 1863 and 1864. they made the trial of clement l. van landingham the test case politically. addressing powerful political letters to lincoln which he answered just as forcefully. all of which were published and put before the people before the election of 1864. the milligan tria

from outside of the appellate court and supreme court clerk circuit.on't really like the way it's gone in recent years. anyway, thank you. >> can i just -- he mentions fred inbau. he had written the police interrogation manual with different techniques and tactics. i think one of the reasons he was disappointed in the miranda decision is that he discovers that all of his techniques and tactics have been quoted as a reason for the supreme court needing to step in and regulate police interrogation. the big irony of the supreme court's miranda decision is it doesn't regulate or restrict any of the techniques, the psychological techniques that inbau used. so he reworked his textbook the next year and it became a best-seller. >> two more questions and then we'll come back to the decision in the case. dale is here locally in springfield, virginia. you're on, dale. >> caller: yes. good evening. i just wanted to point out that the supreme court did not just rush to the exclusionary rule as their first attempt to curtail this sort of activity. there had been a

although he had argued the court before the supreme court. frank harvey fields saw the error, and he actually got justice peckham to degree to let the writ of error go through and get the case to the supreme court. well, when i was alerted to the fact that wiseman had been charged with practicing without a license i decided well, when did he get licensed? so i wrote to the civil court of appeals and the court charged with determining that and i asked for any names, spelling anything i could find. what i found was there was no henry wiseman ever licensed to practice law in new york. so essentially what happens, a, the case was very close to never getting to the court. and b, by the way, wiseman never called himself the attorney. he called himself of counsel. but he an attorney but counsel. he did get the right to argue at least part before the supreme court. >> wiseman turns out to be one of the interesting characters in this entire story because he first starts out organizing the union then switches sides and helps get the case to supreme cou

the warren court's mapp v. ohio decision and other criminal skbruft decisions. while they haven't out rightly reversed these decisions, by ereading the fundamental nature of the decisions, they have been able to restrict its applicability in the criminal justice system. so houd did they do this? they did this by rekansas ael juvgsz for the exclusionary rule and then giving the court the power to decide when to pick and choose essentially when it should be applied. so what you see in court decisions, and i won't bore you with all of them, there are many. if you read the court decisions, there isn't a focus on it being constitutionally required or needed to protect the integrity of the judicial of the system. rather a discussion about the reason you have the rule is to dough terr police misconduct, that it's a judicial creation, that judges sort of came up with it as a way to remedy perceived wrongs, which actually did exist, but there's really no mention of the constitution. and so what the court would then do i

two court opinions that were coming in that were federal court opinions. one was upheld an eight hour day on mining and manufacturing. and the other was atkins versus kansas, which upheld another law. it was either an 8 hour day or 10 hour day for public employees, which is a whole different bailiwick. public employees are part of the contract in a way. so both of those cases were upheld. all of the cases that were in the supreme court at the time this case came up upheld restrictions on hours. >> it's somewhat of a myth going-forward from the lachner case, that it struck down regulations. it struck down some, but i want to go back to where we were at the beginning of the show, that is, that the bake shop act was a very elaborate health and safety law that the lachner court itself upheld to protect both the public, especially to protect the public and others as well. it upheld the constitution. that's the evil terrible lachner court did that. >> we're going to learn more about rufus peckham, the justice who wrote the majority opinion in our next piece of v

he appointed over 25 women to the federal district court, the trial bench, and 11 to courts of appeals, and i was one of those lucky eleven. no president, by the way, went back to the way it was. president reagan didn't want to be outdone so he made a nation-wide search for the first woman. >> rose: sandra day o'connor. and it was a brilliant choice. >> rose: in fact, you have said when she left the court, retired, and alito came on, it marked a change in the court. >> yes. >> rose: because she was gone. well, i have said more than once that the term she left, whenever the court divided 5-4 and i was one of the four, i would have been one of the five if she remained with us. so there was that enormous difference. >> rose: but my question, too, going back to both of you have been influenced by people. your mom. your late husband marty had a huge influence. >> yes. >> rose: you have said to me that you would not have made it to the supreme court without him. >> no question about it. people who observed at the time said, well, ruth would have been on a list, maybe she would be 22 or 23, b

and starting with the courts. i think the subtitle of ron williams' very excellent book "american radical" is entirely misplaced. he had disdain for radicals and for all of the different movements that had arisen out of the plight of the american negro. all except the use of the law and ordinary procedures. second, of all of the stories that he told, you've heard a sample, there are more in gilbert king's book. there are more in the terrific play that laurence fishburne does, in all these stories, he's never the hero. never. thank you. [ applause ] >> i said at the beginning we had a world class panel. i think you can see that was richly validated tonight. can we have a round of applause. [ applause ] let me turn the floor back to the chief judge. >> thanks again to paul englemire for a spectacular job. [ applause ] and to a spectacular panel. your words will live on with us in our learning center. >>> number 759, petitioner versus arizona. >> your arguments for number 18, rowe against wade. >> quite often in many

is inadmissible in state courts. we'll hear from carolyn long, a college professor and author of a book on the case. >> good evening, everyone. i'm sure you know the united states supreme court decision in mapp v. ohio is the heart of tonight's program. that decision, as you probably also know changed the way courts in this country exclude evidence or consider evidence obtained in violation of our fourth amendment rights. before the decision in mapp, the remedy of excluding evidence was unpredictable at best. if a police officer enters or searches our home, our car, our purse, our cell phone, we expect that the judge will prohibit that evidence from being used in a prosecution against us. motions to suppress evidence are now expected. they're common. defense lawyers in the oj simpson murder trial moved to exclude both blood and hair evidence from the trial of that case. counsel for ted kaczynski, better known as the unabomber moved to exclude evidence of an unexploded bomb, a journal in which mr. kaczynski admitted a

court of appeals and then for thurgood marshall, justice of the supreme court. after her clerkship she practiced law for several years at the washington firm of wiggins and connelly. then she abandoned the practice of law at the call of the academy. she spent four years at the university of chicago as a professor of law there. then service to our president. she served as associate counsel to president bill clinton and later as deputy director of president clinton's domestic policy council. then back to the academy, but this time harvard law. she began as a visiting professor, but they decided they liked her pretty well, and so she became a permanent member of the faculty there, and in 2003 was named dean of the harvard law school. then from there she was asked by president obama in 2009 some become the 45th solicitor general of the united states. a year later, president obama nominated justice kagan to become an associate justice of our supreme court, and she was confirmed. do you remember those days? importantly tonight, when the court is in session justice kag

supreme court. we have an outstanding group of scholars, journalists, and judges to talk about the supreme court and the major changes to come. before turning to the program, i want to thank a number of people and organizations who made this possible. the irvine theater, including robin darling and jeff stamper the special events team, from the law school, our new --erim dean, and thanks also to c-span for recording this event for the first time. i also want to single out for special thanks the man in the middle of the stage. uci laws founding law school dean. [no audio] [applause] >> as you all know earlier this month, he left uci to take up a position at our sister school at uc berkeley. it is no exaggeration to say that none of us would he here today if it were not for him, neither this event or the law school with such a reputation for teaching and the cause of justice. it was your vision that brought the school to life your hard , work that made it flourish, and your kindness which made it a jo

an article one type court. our supervisors come i'm not sure why judges need to provisos but they are called assistant chief immigration judges. some of them have some experience. some of them have no experience as judges or attorneys. they were staff attorneys working in the bowels of new york and gradually became temporary board members. interestingly, when a court of appeals is short a judge, they bring up a district judge. new york used to do that by bringing up an immigration judge but i do not do that anymore. appoint their staff attorneys as temporary board members. a fact that is very shocking when you tell it to federal judges. they cannot imagine a panel would be one member short and they would put their law farm on the panel. but that is what goes on. untilp three judges, recently, the top judge of primary deputies had no courtroom experience that i am aware. the two of them have gone on, unfortunately when of them has gone on to be an sba member and the other has retired. our direct supervisors or t

in 1866, the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to try civilians in military courts when civil courts are available. that decision came in the emt party milligan case which outlawed the lincoln administration's practice of bringing civil war dissenters before a military tribunal. ohio state university history professor michael les benedict discussed that decision on the occasion of its 150th anniversary. >> i am going to use the lectern for just a minute. thank you very much, stewart. it's been my pleasure to know our speaker tonight for more years than probably either of us would like to admit. i first met les when he was one of the brightest young graduate students at the university of illinois where we both were studying under harold highman, one of the greats in the field of constitutional history and reconstruction. and although les received his b.a. and masters degree at the university of illinois, where he was able to root for his beloved chicago cubs, he later deserted that by going to rice university when professor highman moved there and received his ph.d. at rice university

of the court's function. marshall died on july 6, 1835, having outlived jefferson by nine years. according to justice story, his final0l words were, "prayer fo the union and strength and depth and comprehensiveness of mind." as written in his eulogy, it would be difficult to name his superior. even the gymlet-eyed justice holmes, scentic and worshipper could agree. as michael gearhart, who is the national constitution center's superb psycholo supe supe superb scholar. in spite of the fact that most did not share his ideology. i can't resist noting as i close that the national constitution center has inaugurated another project of which i'm convinced marshall would have enthusiastically approved. we have brought together the federalist society, the leading conservative and libertarian lawyers organization in america and the american constitutions s society to create the best interactive constitution on the world-wide web. scholars nominated by both groups are writing about every provision of the constitution,

the court. he represented puerto rico in a case before the supreme court and he may have died right before the decision was handed down. am i correct or wrong? >> you know, i think you may well be correct and i think justice forth tugs is really kind of the last example of somebody stepping down from the court and then not serving as a sort of senior justice, which a number of the jufts, for example, you know, justice oh corner, justice souter, though no longer serve on the supreme court, but they still are article three jurists and they still actually sit from time to time on the courts of appeals. it's been a while since we've had a justice who not only steps down but actually sort of retires from article three entirely and is even in a position to argue the cases. but i think justice for tus would be the most recent example of that happening. >> if you're new to the c-span call-in sperps and we know a number of you are watching for the first time tonight, here is how you do it. you call in an

then the appeals court and supreme court very rapidly. and he was someone who from the beginning really struggled to keep up with the pace. and i think had a lot of self-doubt about his own ability to contribute. and he was really torn. whittaker had an argument, during the argument had asked some questions that suggested he had great deal of sympathy for the tennessee petitioners and given hope to folks filing the case. as he expressed this in conference, he suggested that he thought there was so much discrimination that this court should step in but said this is a big case i don't want to be the fifth vote, i'm not sure i can do that. this apparently set felix frankfurter off. >> can you imagine frankfurter for 90 minutes. you see there's two copied and reading and lecturing whit taker, whit taker ultimately decided -- tentatively catch it. stewart was really on the fence. he had serious doubts that if the court allowed the district courts to hear cases he didn't think on the merits the petitioners could win. he recognized there was a p

in the court. was gone. justice ginsburg: i have said the term shee that left, whenever the court divided five--- 5-4, and i was one of r, i would have been one of the five if she was still with us. charlie: my question goes back to your influences, like your mom. your late husband had a huge influence. you said to me that you would not have made it to the supreme court without him. justice ginsburg: no question about it. ,eople who observed at the time ruth would have been on a list, maybe she would have been 22 or 23, but it was marty who made her number one. charlie: how did he do that. ? justice ginsburg: he had a little book of people that he contacted. [laughter] mainly my academic colleagues. in those days -- this was before my first job in d.c. he got in touch with academic colleagues, lawyers who knew me and hee work i had done, had many letters sent to the president. i think the most important thing of all, and this was almost out rabbi, my guide, was centered in moynihan. how did that co

as a law clerk in this court. he has been on the court obviously now since 1994. for lesson years he was the most junior justice on the court. almost broke a record for that. but now he's moved up quite handsomely in seniority. at any rate, my pleasure to have justice breyer speak to us tonight. >> thank you very much. thank you for introducing the introducer. it's nice to be here. i love to be at this. it's always interesting. usually just one person is speaking about history. we have four. it's fwg to be four times as interesting as it usually is of the it will be very nice. and this is a joint program between the supreme court historical society and the fellows alumni program. and both of these organizations were the brainchild of chief justice berger. when he joined the court, berger, he quickly noted that every other branch has ancillary organizations. i mean, think of how many the president has? i mean, really. we haven't even thought of having, you know, a securities and exchange commission to the court. in

seat up on the court. and now there are three women on the court and i think it's taken as axiomatic that there would continue to be one or two women on the court. now this brings, if i can, the whole question about how this came about, anti-semitism within the legal profession and is it okay to address this with brandeis or -- >> well on i'm going to ask you -- you decide whether to address it now. it's certainly something i want you to talk about. >> sure. sure. >> i was thinking that for those two or three people in the country who can't rattle off automatically who these, you know, sometimes mysterious eight jewish justices are, maybe it would help to set things off just by having you identify who they were, who they were nominated by and when they served and just a couple of sentences. i'm going to, time permitting, ask you questions about each of them and what they're, as your subtitle says, your legacy is, but i guess we may have to continue this discussion until tomorrow afternoon. why don't we jus

louis federal court. and then in 1856 it was argued for the first time before the supreme court, argued once again, a second argument to the supreme court in the is same year. 1857 the decision was handed down, and also 1857 dred and harriet scott were freed. we will tell that story later on. he only lived another year and a half after that, died in 1858. ultimately from the first petition in the st. louis county court until the supreme court heard his case, it was 11 years. is that typical today if you go to the supreme court? is it a long time? >> i mean there are cases that do go on for a decade today, but a freedom suit certainly shouldn't have taken that long. i mean it is remarkable in its length really. the fact that it was contest so thoroughly -- i mean you have to realize by the time this case gets decided, dred scott is an old man. he is -- as far as his value as a slave, he is of diminished value. he's sick, and yet they're continuing to fight over dred scott and harriet scott. >> and his daug

court system. this is live coverage of the center for immigration studies on c-span2. >> it seems like the kind of thing that would be inside baseball for immigration experts, but the backlog in immigration courts has grown quite dramatically and that's gotten the attention of regular mainstream media, and there's a variety of issues here. what's causing this backlog and what kind of possible solutions there are, and in order to address that question, we've called this panel initially to discuss a paper that the center for immigration studies published specifically on this issue. the causes and possible solutions for the backlog. and the first presenter on the panel today is going to be author of that paper, andrew arthur, a former immigration judge, is now resident fellow in law and policy at the center for immigration studies. he also has worked as a senior staff member in a couple of congressional committees and in the ins before that. he's seen the immigration issue from almost all sides. after

supreme court. he is a colonizationist, someone who advocates a former slave cannot live peacefully in the united states and they should be removed voluntarily to places like liberia. he is a catholic living in the large diocese of maryland. i think most important for thinking about dred scott, he is someone who has fought for many, many years about the question of free black citizenship even before we get to 1857. it is a question that has been on taney's mind since the 1820s and the 1830s when as attorney general he had already begun to work out his theory about black citizenship, and we know his conclusion is that black people cannot be citizens of the united states. >> well, the background to tell you more numerically about the country at this point, the total population of the united states in the 1850s was 31 plus million people. slaves, who counted for an additional 3.4 or 4 million people, and there were about half a million free blacks in the united states. did the free blacks, for example,

on the court. and it can be expected that the judges would reflect the racial attitudes of the majority of the population. therefore, why think that the courts would be a good venue for vindicating african-american rights? and then there were those who said that even if thurgood marshal and the legal defense fund were able to prevail, segregation -- excuse me, discrimination could continue, notwithstanding the change in the law, which is perhaps the most profound criticism that could be made. and i have to say, that all of those critics really were on to sympathetic. and that's really the difference between constitutional law in theory and on the books and on the ground. ultimately, all of these people were saying that individuals are the face of the law that people experience on an everyday basis. and they were skeptical that individuals would really come through in the way that marshal imagined. >> next, we'll learn how the story of the brown family made its way to a federal course. but before we

court". as many of you know he is post of a television show in the metropolitan area and we usually have a range of personalities on his show. he is a leading litigator having served as an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york and the criminal division under the former speaker robert - [applause] >> thank you for the overly and excessively generous introduction. as you begin to describe my accomplishments i kept looking behind me to see who you're talking about. i'm very honored to be here at the down town association. i'm always happy to talk about my favorite subject which is the supreme court of the united states. it is particularly fitting and proper to talk about the supreme court in the shadow and grave of alexander hamilton who was one of the authors of the constitution. the book, we will get it later is about the politicization and as i've gone around the country talking about the book i find that lawyers and nonlawyers alike are keenly interested in th