but that the swings are less radical between the district court's, the court of appeals -- district courts and the court of appeals. the president had engaged in a bit of discrimination and it seems pretty likely, but not certain, that whatever the supreme court winds up saying, that will not be the ultimate word [indiscernible] it may be featured in the argument. i'm sure it is something that the just as i think about -- thinking about. when the justices decide questions about whether something should be reviewable, they always think down the road. they are certainly also think about the case before them right now. it is certainly something they think about, but i would be surprised if the basis of the decision would be the president has engaged in discrimination throughout the writing of all of [indiscernible] amy: and now we will move on to the weighty issue of online shopping. [laughter] south dakota versus wayfarer. this is a case in which i am deeply conflicted. my husband represents south dakota. trying to acquire. out-of-state retailers to collect and pay sales taxes. on the other

had,i put on my historical it is much as the supreme court but the trial courts, the courts of appeals very on these things. task tod turn over this judges. the task ends up getting from to judges. -- ends up getting thrown to judges fairly often. it is not a radical change in california. dozentudies have said a -- >> is that legislative or congressional? congressional, it could affect the control of the state legislator and wisconsin. it could affect the majority control of the north carolina general assembly. when you have a super majority you can do a lot more. it would affect politics in some places in some ways. i am sure it would have some other unintended consequences. in the details. it depends on how this is implemented. if they kill case comes out this way, the courts would come in, whatever the standard is going to be, it is going to take years of litigation to find out how -- it is going to be like in 1962. it is not until 1970 when we get a sense of how it will work. i and just remembering the days when i was covering mississippi, i was based there and write johnson -- fra

supreme court. there are tens of thousands of cases that move through the federal district and federal circuit courts that touch every aspect of our lives, and i think that historically, we have seen presidents really respect the integrity of the courts and put forth nominees who sometimes invite debate, put forth nominees who sometimes, you know, are polarizing, but historically, we've seen presidents put forth nominees who can garner some degree of bipartisan support. and that hasn't been the case with president trump's nominees and i think that's because he has been so singularly focused on putting forth radical ideologues who fall far outside the legal mainstream. he's put through people of low caliber, as we saw with matthew peterson, and he has been relentless of putting forward young white men for vacancies that exist across our federal courts. i think that's a shame. white men make up about 31% of the u.s. population but have represented the lion's share, more than 80% of this president's no

court -- >> that's right. they didn't make its own exigency analysis. that is another ground on which we win. we'd rather win on a categorical exception. we clearly think there are exigent circumstances here beyond the categorical exigency in the automobile exception -- >> that would be a question for remand because it wasn't reached by the virginia supreme court. >> we would be confident if it were remanded we would prevail on that, yes, your honor. >> officer rhodes had probable cause before he ever stepped foot on the driveway to know that this vehicle was stolen. the supreme court of virginiaof cause before he ever stepped foot on the driveway to know that this vehicle was stolen. the supreme court of virginia in its opinion at 15 said officer rhodes had probable cause to believe the vehicle was stolen and there was testimony by officer rods to support the fact that he did know it was stolen -- >> you say probable cause to get a warrant, then you don't need a warrant. and that's the automobile exception. i

courts decision. unless there are further questions, thank you. >> thank you, mr. cox. mr. fitzgerald, four minutes remaining. >> thank you. just a few points. rebuttal here. so the curtilage is protected as part of the home. and if we look back historically speaking h the automobile exception is borne at a traffic stop in the 1920s. the automobile exception as it is created makes sense in that context. but the automobile exception has grown r it's become a categorical exception. we no longer look fok exigency on a case-by-case basis. and now the automobile exception is literally knocking at the door of the house. and the question is whether to apply this exception created based on exigent circumstances in 1925 to a search of the curtilage of a home. and now on the state's argument, even their back up argument, even what they give up, there easily could have been probable cause to think this motorcycle was at this residence if it were around hyped the house f the driveway went a little farther, and it

the court -- articulate, smart, liberal on the court. think it elevates the entire conversation, the debate. i was surprised by how forceful and strong he was in his ongoing support for her. amy: and talking about relationships that might surprise some, her relationship, julie cohen, with justice scalia and the significance of this, the history of this before scalia died. >> justice scalia and justice ginsburg were quite close going back to their days together on the u.s. court of appeals for the d c circuit in the 1980's, admired each other as kind of intellectual sparring partners. and really liked and loved each other as friends. they both loved opera. they both had a lot of other intellectual interests in theater and literature. and the fact that they disagreed so vehemently on the law sure nearly seemed to have made them closer to one another. ity did not deny that sometimes wasn't exactly pleasant. one example that the justice had talked about is, you know, after bush the gore when they were -- could not have been more opposed to e

the court will go ahead courts exist court is created to show a man once and it is not in question you had a joint statement it was a joint statement generally the forth by germany britain italy france the us all that any move to stop this court would risk everything that cost of a has achieved anyone who supports this they said would be rejecting because of this partnership with other countries including because of those integration into the e.u. and later so the stakes here are very high and they are they are the are of a row that show in fact satisfied in the past its obligation towards international and national role so there is no doubt that kosovo will continue and will stay committed to such as why its obligation towards national and international law well not if you try to i'm in atlanta with the. peace initiative that exists in the parliament as i stated it's not a decision it's a measure of m.p.'s i know it's an initiative but the point is. we're not it looks now it looks not really it's not going to go in no. one of your newspapers called this the most serious and dramatic c

an appellate court judge and i wonder how you decided from the trial court to the other court. >> guest as you know it's the president's call. the senators have a big say in the district court of appeals is a little more than just the justice department. in 1977, president carter did something no president had ever done before or since in the effort to diversify the federal judiciary, he cleared himself to create the citizens commission and every one of the circuits around the country. half lawyers and half nonlawyers and he committed himself to say for every vacancy i want the condition to give a list of five names and i will limit my choice to one of those five. it turned out to the beach becausbecause there were vacancs that were the same kind so we were interviewed by the commission and they asked very probing questions frankly it was more rigorous than the senate hearings. if you didn't get on that list you had no shot. the president could pick and he picked the two of us. there's a fascinating anecdote in the book about the memo that you drafted that was sent to the white house to

about 99.5% of cases that move through the court system and the district court in circuit court.i continue to think they'll be the real place a focus. >> you've seen grassley a mcconnell place in their emphasis on the court of appeals we may continue to see nominations put forth. whether or not they are made for part of their base of the they don't look to the system quickly think will see that trend. >> any questions? my wife just texted and asked how's it going? >> any chance of recusal i think there's several. let's just take well haven't talked about yet. bush was one of two people that they named -- bloggers. they blogged on so many different issues that emotion would certainly be in order for some of them. but recusal motions i can imagine a lot of them who get confirmed. it would be interesting if blog posting become a way to recuse people. many of his nominees are bloggers. we had john parrish, i'm curious to see the motion based on -- or a judge. i think we haven't seen that much. >> i'm sure it has been [inaudible] a mass scale. this being an arrow were overseen chilly

supreme court. and 12 to the circuit court of appeals. by comparison, in president obama's first year in office, the senate only confirmed 13 judges, 3 to the circuit courts. this administration has been aggressive in naming nominees, often without consultation from senators, bucking longstanding practice. they have been embarrassed by some of the simple tymptoms of rushed process having to reconsider moving forward, for example, with three incredibly troubling nominees. however, concerning trends we have seen in these nominees remain in some of the others. nominees, for example, who lack legal experience. lack experience in the jurisdiction which they've been nominated. come from strong ideological backgrounds. have made deeply troubling public, sometimes anonymous statements. they may have not received a qualified reading from the aba standing committee on the federal judiciary or are not fully forthcoming in their questionnaire or their hearing. many senators have tried to be a check on this admi

, still district court but have circuit judge from the court of appeals and to district court judges.that was just about the first case i ever had. i was in 39 years old and signed on the case and the case was a challenge to the connecticut abortion statute which it no exceptions at all. not for rate, in cisco anything. >> host: which was typical at the time. >> guest: of many states. and although it had, i welcomed all all the history of the book does explain but when we finally got to the issue, judge lombard was a court of appeals judge and design be the opinion, was a two to one decision, there was a dissent. i wrote the opinion and the thing i said well, the supreme court has given some protection to marital privacy. it done that in the contraceptive case, griswold, years ago. and i thought, although they have not this was before roe v. wade, that's what it was an interesting case. i thought they were protecting marital privacy and i thought that meant it made at least in the early stages of pregnancy it protected the right of the woman to make her own decisions about reproductio

cox: well, the court -- the court has -- justice breyer: i mean, it's on the driveway. it's in part of his house. i know that the motorcycle is movable, but there is no exigent circumstance. he is search -- wants to look into the box, open the tarp. why? does the fourth amendment permit that? okay. that's a long, long question. i just needed the basics, and now i've got to my point, and now i'd like to hear your answer. mr. cox: i'll -- i'll try to answer, and i'm sure you'll correct me if i misstate what the hypothetical says. my understanding is that there was a virtual certainty here that this was the same motorcycle under the tarp. so there was not any uncertainty about what was under the box, as it were. the court, to the second part, the court has also treated other closed containers differently than vehicles. in the ross case, in acavedo, they have said containers are different than automobiles because the -- the movability of them is just far greater than the movability of other items. and there was a debate, there were some predecessors of yours on the court wh

>> i believe that the appellate courts, the supreme court will find what the district court did. and that is that the actions of this administration went beyond the law. so i'm gaining confidence every day that our litigation, our lawsuit to protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers will prevail. >> do you think democrats should continue to press for a clean bipartisan bill to give d.r.e.a.m.ers a path to citizenship without any attachments to things like funding for a border wall or cracking down on the visa lottery program? how productive is that effort, though, given that congress is currently controlled by republicans? >> forgive me. i'm going to give you an answer that some democrats may not like. i don't understand why democrats continue to act like they have to bail out republicans for doing these crazy things. republicans just passed a tax break bill that gives the wealthiest americans and corporations $1.8 trillion worth of tax breaks. now republicans are claiming that they have to cut services and programs for veterans, for school kids, for elderly because there's no money. why would d

so it is a search of the curtilage and the court stopped there, this court stopped there and affirming the florida supreme court which throughout the search for lack of a warrant based on the protection of the curtilage. >> counsel, we permit the police to seize items in plain view in a home. they get a search warrant for the home and they see an item that they have probable cause to believe is incriminating evidence, they can seize it. justice bryer said circumstances permit police to seize items. i think the assumption or not the assumption, the premise of all of those cases is that the police are there legitimately, if you have a warrant, you are permitted to be there. in jar deans, you couldn't seize the incriminating evidence from the house because you didn't have a right to be in the curtilage and so isn't there a difference when you are in the street as these police officers were. they have a right to be on the street. they have a right to look at whatever is visible and they could see the motorcycle from there. so is this a plain view case? is this a exsi intelligent circumstan

in europe and the both courts to be applicable but they are two totally different courts of the court in strasbourg deals with fundamental rights extends way beyond the twenty eight countries and it was something established after world war two to avoid the sort of happenings that we experienced in europe during the years of fascism and that is something that we should always be aware of and awake to and therefore the fight to maintain a system that protects citizens in countries it could be vulnerable to that is mightily important but the u.s. has to suggesting that if the u.k. withdrew from the jurisdiction of stars but court that fundamental liberties in this company wouldn't be protected by the supreme court in london well there are times where that has doubts about it any court including of course the courts as book it doesn't always get it right but i want to see britain the united kingdom and particularly wales or scotland in a system that in. sure is those rights for all our colleagues in europe and not just in the european union it is so important because once you start getti

in europe and the both courts to be applicable but they are two totally different courts of the court in strausberg deals with fundamental rights extends way beyond the twenty eight countries and it was something established after world war two to avoid the sort of happenings that we experienced in europe during the years of fascism and that is something that we should always be aware of and awake to and therefore the fight to maintain a system that protects citizens in countries that could be vulnerable to that is mightily important but they will assist the suggesting that if the u.k. withdrew from the jurisdiction of stars but court that fundamental liberties in this company wouldn't be protected by the supreme court in london well there are times where that has doubts about it any court including of course the courts as a book it doesn't always get it right but i want to see britain and united kingdom and particularly wales or scotland in a system that in. sure is those rights for all our colleagues in europe and not just in the european union it is so important because once you st

court court of appeals.that is where i am now. >> to be a mentor to you as he was to me as an extraordinary man at a different time politically. perhaps you can talk about abe and his relationship to john bailey and how that is different than it is now? who cared about policy and the development in public service. >> the ideal political team. ruby cough was the candidate and bailey was the political chairman they complemented each other brilliantly. rubikof knew they had to take charge. >> but it was the political boss which some people regard as the majority but i don't. >> he winchester bowls and new issues were important they understood that was a big issue and went along with it and they each knew what the other had to do successful. >> but you tell a remarkable story in the book were they considering abolishing the court of common pleadings? and that they would for -- be a bore. >> but rubikof summoned a lot of people to the office democratic of the leaders i was working for bailey at that point. so the

stopping the court. really there goes forty three lisa signed a petition to stop the call or it's even start the court itself it's eighty votes it's two thirds it's a man men of our constitution have agreed in that it's a law in proceedings proceedings of the court that then please initiated an abrogation in the way the. amendment the law the law they do still low light infantry is the level of stop in the court itself so the court will go ahead of course exist court is created to show a man once and it is not in question you had a joint statement it was a joint statement generally the fourth by germany britain italy france the us the wall that any move to stop this court would risk everything that cost of oil has achieved anyone who supports this they said would be rejecting because of this partnership with other countries including because of those integration into the e.u. and later so the stakes here are very high and they are they are have a road that show in fact satisfied in the past its obligatio

>>> up next, the supreme court oral argument in the days byrd versus u.s. the case centers on whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car he did not rent himself and is not authorized to drive under the rental agreement. he was arrested on drug and weapon charges in 2014 while driving car rented by his girlfriend. >>> you'll hear argument this morning in byrd versus united states. >> the government's proposed rule should be rejected for three reasons. the privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the car's locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this court's reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not contract terms and not property rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negate fourth amendment rights, it's notable that mr. byrd's presence in the car and the government does not dispute this was not improper. his storing of his personal items in the trunk was not even a contract violation. >> could he have been -- could he have b

our jean casarez is outside the court. just after the sentencing, i was talking to paul about the poignancy and power from the prosecutor and from the judge saying this must stop, applauding the survivors for coming forward and the judge saying i just signed your death warrant. give us more or not drama in that courtroom. >> you know, there's just so many levels. as we heard from each and every survivor as they gave their victim impact statements, we also heard dates. along the way we heard that in 1997, one of the victims went straight to msu's gymnastics coach and told her exactly what was happening to her. and you understand what nassar was doing. he was telling all of these young women over two decades that this was proven medical treatment. their parents would be in the room. he would position himself in a way so the parent would not see what he was doing. and he would take his fingers and his hands, go inside these women for this proven medical treatment. besides that, he was the olympic team doctor for over two deca

the supreme court's recent decision to deny review of the ninth circuit case let stand that court's decision. these courts consistently determine that a warrant is not required to collect or query 702 information. moreover, the independent p club review board has reviewed the entire framework of 702 and found it to be constitutional. the other main claim against this bill sl that provides -- is that it provides new powers to the government. again, this is not true. nevertheless this bill clueds -- includes significant reforms. first the bill requires the f.b.i. to get a warrant in some criminal cases. in other words, we added a warrant where courts have held none are necessary. the bill also provides protection for whistle-blowers and requires an inspector general report. in short, this bill provides our government the tools it needs to protect our national security while providing some much-needed transparency measures and increase privacy and civil liberty protections. you can tell i'm very strongly in support of this legislation. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very importan

chief justice and may it please the court. i think mr. olson has boiled down the state's case to what i take to be his two arguments. this a commandeering problem because new jersey is forced to keep a law on its books. both of those arguments are incorrect. as to the first, i would encourage the court to look at page 383 of the jaa. the injunction in this case did not remotely require the state to keep a law on its books. it says the state cannot give operation or effect to its preempted law. that's almost exactly word for word what justice scalia said in prince. if the state passes a law that is preempted by federal law, the state can be required not to give effect to that law. that is not conscription in any meaning of the word. as to the second, i think the comprehensive federal regime is a made up principle for the reasons mr. clement gives. states may not regulate commerce in a way because the states are to take their hands off of that particular part of interstate commerce. even if the court thinks it's a principle doesn't need to

in europe and the both courts to be applicable but they are two totally different courts of the court in strasbourg deals with fundamental rights extends way beyond the twenty eight countries and it was something established after world war two to avoid the sort of happenings that we experienced in europe during the years of fascism and that is something that we should always be aware of and awake to and therefore the fight to maintain a system that protects citizens in countries it could be vulnerable to that is mightily important but the illness is suggesting that if the u.k. withdrew from the jurisdiction of stars but court that fundamental liberties in this company wouldn't be protected by the supreme court in london well there are times where that has doubts about it any court including of course the courts as a book it doesn't always get it right but i want to see britain the united kingdom and particularly wales or scotland in a system that in. sure is those rights for all our colleagues in europe and not just in the european union it is so important because once you start gett

of human rights which muhammad spoke about the european court of justice which is an e.u. organ the european union they have intervened in those that it can go back for. i think we just ought to pull out of the north a pull out from from the european court of justice. that you like what we are with . allen thank you for correcting me there you get confused between the various courts but look i'm not here to defend this terrorist or this alleged terrorist or this alleged extremist we're all here to say absolutely no place in our society for these type of people but again i ask the question if he is such a dangerous threat to the safety and security of sweden why isn't he look top why haven't they taken criminal action against him put him away behind bars but you know we are compassionate and humanitarian one hundred three hundred european morning. why should they do that the boat came across as a guest he's a guest where you can he's clearly a mouse an unwelcome guest because they feel he's a threat to society then roach chuck him out send it back home that's what they're g

there is a petition before this court that asks that question. you have an authorized driver with a suspended drivers license, getting in the car p turning key is a criminal act. they are not allowed to be doing that and i take it their rule would create a legitimate expectation of privacy. >> no, because it is a crime to be there and he falls within the exception. >> it is more difficult to apply in practice and it doesn't make a particular amount of sense. >> what do you suggest as a rule? you suggest as a rule that what you look to see under a rule it can extend back to the 18th century. under the law and a lot of other things, does this person have the legal right to be in that particular place where he is doing those things he's doing at the time which are relevant to appearance of ownership? >> your honor -- no. >> what is your legal -- >> the principle we propose resolve this is case and i don't mean to repeat myself here. where the assertion of the fourth amendment rights comes from an act that is contrary to the legal norms of a well est

i think, i can say many things about. impartial both in court and out of court. society is going. into and very senior positions in the law. hugely important matters? to claim that i am perfect. and yes, you are right. by our background and more confident about the world we know. have had the experience of. and its reputation reaching around the world. but it is quite a secretive and closed institutional framework. is that something that needs to be addressed? that is being addressed. you are entirely right. like a priesthood almost shunned away from society. and explain to people what they do and why they do it. the parole board of the uk. of eight years. than eight years. to that decision. is that day and age the wrong attitude? has acted in accordance with its duties. that's true as far as i know. which is very dangerous. be applied to the parole board too? i cannot pretend to be an expert on the parole board. i am not hedging. as open as possible. a relatively closed system. to be the president? who is ultimately making their decisions? whether to accept or reject. it is not clear

supreme court. to janice case is designed remove what has already been established as the constitutionality of public to ce unions to be able their fees and dues for membership. which will be a catastrophic threat to the survival of these unions. and so we want to explain that. we want to also share the greatness of this. and so this is where we are. and i want to ask those who are listening over c-span tonight, all across this country, call a neighbor, call a friend, tell them to tune in and listen to these members of congress pour ut the truth about what's at stake with this janice court case that will be coming up before the supreme court. the first union that will be is ask me. but it's far more than just ask me. it's the public sector unions that will be ruled as whether it's constitutional or not for them to have dues. to be able to pay. this case comes from an individual, mr. janice in illinois, who disagreed with the political endorsements. well, what's important to understand going forward,

olson. >> thank you chief justice, and may it please the court. one of the most important decisions made at the constitutional convention in 1787 was replacing the failed confederacy that governed states with a national government that could regulate individuals but not states. in the words of this court in the new york case, congress may regulate interstate commerce directly, but it may not regulate state's regulation of interstate commerce. >> mr. olson, isn't that what the government does whenever it preempts state law? it says you can't regulate? >> when the government preempts state laws, the government, the federal government has initially taken the position or taken an action to regulate interstate commerce in some respect, and when it does that, this court has repeatedly held it may preempt contradictory or inconsistent state laws. >> so what do you make of ferc. >> pardon? >> what do you make of ferc? the government gave the state a choice. regulate this way or don't regulate at all. >> that's right. >> and we won't either. >> it gave the

we're not asking the court to reject the katz rule. the court recognized -- >> i know that. i'm not asking you that, either, mr. feigin. >> reasonable expectations of privacy is a very difficult inquiry your a court to undertake and should hesitant before deciding some social understanding is well-embedded in society, that it justifies constitutional protection under the 4 amendment. where you have the kind of empirical or common sense data you have here where the assertion is in derogation of the established legal norms of a major commercial industry, i don't think that societal understandings to the extent they even exist at all can really carry the day. but to get back to the sort of premise of your question, we're not saying that certain contract terms should be respected and certain contract terms shouldn't. the distinction that we're drawing here is between somebody who actually has a legitimate connection to the car because the person is the renter of the car or is an authorized -- >> the son of a nafather who ow the car but is not an authorized driver on insurance, a

the supreme court of the united states as well as the supreme court of elyria. into the new situation of law. everybody thought the issues solved and resolved and the law of the land was. is that right, where are we today? >> i think we are halfway through. it was only 2003 that the supreme court outlawed sodomy prohibition. a little more than a decade where we have gone from that to same-sex marriage. every territory in the united states you can get married if you are gay or lesbian. but at the same time, we don't have employment protections. only about half of the states have employment protection. we have challenges to that, like the recent case that the supreme court heard about the baker in colorado who refused to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. so we are halfway through this development. the law has caught up in some places, provides for a protections, but even just today the supreme court refused to hear the evans case on sexual orientation and whether the 11th circuit sexual discrimination protects people. we are seeing circuit split their w

and the courts don't have to draw it. the courts have said, "you have until february 15th."o they're giving the legislature an opportunity to do it. if they don't do it, then the courts draw the line. >> to matt's point, though -- till february 15th, though, to draw the whole state. >> well, it's not like, you know, we don't have, like, really super computers these days and that we can't figure out how to do this. >> so, anyone think that the districts are gonna stay the way they are? >> no way. >> no one thinks that. does anyone think that we are going to end up with the possibility the democrats could seize the majority of the number of congressional districts after this upcoming election in november? >> i don't think so. >> seizing a majority i think would be... >> yeah, no. >> pick up a couple seats. >> i'm hearing that, if you could get it right, i'm hearing, at the most, you might make three competitive. >> yeah. >> that's what i'm hearing. >> one thing i'm hearing is, with the 7th district, with pat meehan now resigning, or after he's not up for re-election, they migh

. >> the supreme court heard oral argument for mccoin vs. louisiana. the court will decide whether a death row inmate's sixth meament amendment rights were violated after a lawyer admitted his guilt during a trial as part of the defense strategy even though e on thed to it. robert morley was accused of kill his wife's three family mention. he claimed not guilty. mccoy, represented by a new attorney, filed suit for a new trial. he was denied and that appealed to be louisiana supreme court where they, too, ruled against him. the case is now before the supreme court and the justice have through -- justices have through june 2018 to delimp a ruling. >> your argument next in case 168255, mccoy vs. louisiana. mr. max -- waxman? >> there chief justice, and may it please the courts, when a defendant maintenance -- maintains his innocence and insists on -- the prosecution on its burden of proof, the constitution prohibits a trial court from permitting the defendant's own lawyer over the defendant's objection to tell the jury that he is guilty. the sixth amendme

because it's automatic systematic and by default they're charged in a military court which inherent in military courts which is the case in the israeli military detention system they lack basic fair trial protections so for example under israeli military there is no right to an attorney during interrogation that's a pretty fundamental right that we take for granted in most jurisdictions throughout the world so you see these these basic protections that just don't exist you know added to the fact that. three three out of four kids arrested by israeli forces from the west bank experienced some form of physical violence following arrest right so what we've seen defense for children through the legal representation that we provide is that physical violence the treatment the rights and the kids face that is widespread systematic and institutionalized throughout the system in many ways the odds cases a typical case in what children face when arrested by israeli forces i think the unique thing is that she comes from a high profile family she has a high profile herself so it's driven a bit

she's on back court office and the key player on her team. is a fight up off the handball court as well to many she's a hero in the fight against sexual harassment. and she's had more than her share of hurtful experiences on the internet than the familiar things like this happen both to me and my girlfriends sexual innuendoes on the internet and offline as well as the father. over and over she's received suggestive and degrading postings on her social media accounts a total stranger a center there's one. hey gary you go for scarfing i'd like to gradually strangle you beneath me until you slowly run out of air does that sound. a little hard. sense this kind of harassment is widespread on the internet almost a daily occurrence men photograph their own genitals and send them to her regularly often captioned with lewd texts then i decided to take action. she began touching up the photos and writing her own comments on the messages. when she puts them on her instagram profile class and. the momentum we have they have with about a lot of these men

may it please the court. the state proposes a rule that in a narrow class of death penalty cases counsel sometimes might be required to override his client on a trial strategy, when the strategy that the client wants counsel to pursue is a futile charade and requires him, that to defeat both their objectives of defeating the death penalty. we submit that that should be treated as a strickland ineffective assistance of counsel. >> i'm sorry, you started by saying you wanted a narrow rule. why is it narrow? seems to me that it's a rule that you're saying is absolute. why does it have to be just in death penalties cases? why would we limit your rule. >> your honor, we conceded and we would agree in most cases that the rules of professional conduct would dictate that a lawyer follows a directives of his client. >> is it the rules of professional conduct or is it the sixth amendment? the sixth amendment requires you to be represented by counsel, effective counsel but counsel. do you concede that generally, or all

chief justice may i please the court. a probable cause is a practical standard and not accounts for the practical limitations officers face when making arrests decisions including the inability to look directly into the minds of suspects offering innocent explanations for suspicious conduct, and so i don a case like this one, but it's established in circumstantial evidence of mens rea but a strong or at least fair arrest is reasonable and constitutional, and more clearly qualified immunity applies. let's turn to the totality of the circumstance from the perspective-- >> before you do that, given the other charges in the case relating to disorderly conduct and negligent supervision, where do they stand and are they in any way effective in the argument? >> we do not pursue an argument existed for disorderly conduct and supervision. that claim fails if there was neither probable cause were qualified immunity. that's where they stand, your honor. if i may turn back to the totality of circumstances, my clients responded to nei

chief justice, may it please the court. government seeks to transform a violation of a car rental agreement into a real unlisted drivers have no ability to even in folk support. -- the first amendment. the rule should be rejected for three reasons. ignoring a person's privacy expectation 20 locks his personal property in a cars locked trunk with the commission -- permission of the printer it is contrary to the expectation of privacy which looks to privacy expectations and not contract terms and not property rights. while the contract violation alleged is not negate fourth amendment rights, it is notable that his presence in the car was not improper. restoring of his personal -- the storing of his items in the trunk was not a violation. perhaps not. given permission by the renter to store his items in the locked trunk and the government does not argue that was impermissible. >> oppose he had in a passenger. and the renter was there. ,> even if he was a passenger if the person who rented the car gave his permission to lock hi

the court was ready to do that in large part because thurgood marshall had made the court ready to do supreme court would not have decided brown v board on its own in a vacuum. this court decided brown v board because lawyers, led by thurgood marshall, and i mean really led by thurgood marshall, brought cases to the court, which finally made the court understand that this was their constitutional duty. kim crenshaw: they had their own plan, their own architecture, their own aspiration about how they were trying to renovate american society and they managed to do it. justice kagan: the moment brown was decided, segregation in every aspect of american life - the writing was on the wall and the days were numbered. kim crenshaw: that is, i think, the most profound story in american law in the 20th century. justice kagan: i don't know of a legal accomplishment in this country that's greater. thurgood marshall: after all these years the struggle is far from over. society continues to hold out unfilled promises and unrealized aspirations. the incongruity of slavery in a nation conceived in l

good and sends a copy of the court's decision to have paper. outside in front of the courthouse the lawyer for the journalists describes the repeated postponement of the trial as a tactic to keep the defendants on depression it's not shakun and her colleagues are watched and filmed by the police the entire time. one of the defendants is thankful that shakun is not intimidated. by region to fight it it's so important because it's become routine in turkey to condemn and in prison journalists. joke i'll say that you and fewer newspapers and t.v. stations in this country are concerned with this because they censor themselves. because they didn't get to go out and that is the intention behind it. just like i shushed can returns to the editorial department of her newspaper him her yet three of her colleagues are currently in prison and dozens of accusations are pending. the editors fight to survive and shako knows that she could be indicted at any time for her court reporting oh by jove i was. in turkey there is no system of law that protects the rig

often people have a sense that if you're talking about a court there is there is some form of justice that's administered there the military court system is can be further from justice really the goal is to arrest illtreat you know five hundred to seven hundred palestinian kids each year run through this military court system where the overwhelming majority of these kids plead guilty because it's the fastest way to get them out of that secure situation where pretrial detention is the norm right there and they're looking even a child. facing one stone throwing charge which throwing stones is a specific offense under military law the majority of children are charged with throwing stones they may spend anywhere from three months to twelve months in detention for that specific charge and then when they're released there's usually a fine that could be one hundred dollars to three thousand dollars and then also a suspended sentence probationary period essentially that would be three five years if they are charged the same offense again in that period they automatically serve you know whatev

that's how the court rules. a standard which would forbid the reception of evidence if obtained by other than nice, ethical conduct by government officials would make society suffer and give criminals greater immunity than has been known heretofore. in the '20s, the standard was set for free speech in his dissent that ultimately became the court's ruling many decades down the road. he dissented into this case as well. taft's last comments, essentially, right in some ways say thath ends justify the means. here is what he says, decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that demands to the citizen. in the government of allow laus, existence will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. in the government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law skrup allocrupu. crime is contagious. if the government becomes a law breaker, it briefeds contempt for law, invites every man to become a l