lower courts, not the supreme court, lower courts and only a handful of lower courts, one circuit court and a couple of district courts found a jury trial, right, the supreme court found ratification based on that and moreover, direct had i in response to your question. >> that's not-- >> if i could finish. >> i'll let you finish and then i'll ask you a question, thank you. >> right. to further their point they said congress and ada, turned over other aspects. what did they point to? lower court opinions on scope of flsa rights not the question of the jury trial right, other context, and they said because congress overturned other parts of the flsa we will assume that they ratified the parts they didn't touch. that's also exactly what the supreme court did in the far gher decisions. they said the civil rights amendment the very issue here, when congress overturned a variety of supreme court decisions in other areas, but didn't touch meritor the scope of ability for employers, they radfied that. it would be stronger if the '91 congress in the civil rights bill specifically talked about s

, some other appellate court cases. so we might see another decision coming down in a few years. >> the fight for the constitution, what we are talking about, to be clear, what both of us talk about, what dick heller valiantly fought for and continues to to this day, he keeps fighting on every other issue is about our constitutional rights of law abiding people to defend ourselves. that's what we're talking about. and he will continue to fight on so many fronts which are what you hope to see in your lifetime, what would you like to see of the second amendment recognized? >> when i started becoming aware, i had a mantra. i said in a totally free country you do not need permission from the government to defend your life and own a firearm. a fellow walked into my office, i'm a policeman full time, a fellow walked into my office, i said oh, you're from florida or someplace, some constitutional carry state which means you don't need any government interaction to own a firearm. i said oh, you're from say it is arizona. you're

what the state courts do that. >> with the federal courts can. they are authorized they are supposed to get the first shot. >> people pass constitutional limits in florida how the legislature does redistricting and it was challenged as a violation of the elections clause. so it doesn't seem like a strong argument. >> how many more redistricting questions? [laughter] [inaudible] the fact that pennsylvania judges are elected i wouldn't think so. but the role the state and federal courts play is pretty well established with most of the justices in supreme court's. >> these are partisan was this brought up in pennsylvania afterwards? >> i don't know the timing but. >> not that that says anything about the decision but it could about the case. >> look at the map it isn't based on merits but you are right looking at the state supreme court before deciding the case be met. >> doesn't it make you feel that one case is likely to win having so many different arguments and is likely that whatever the case might be what impact beyond that state? does it mean

supreme court. we timed the case from the enactment of the legislation all the way through so it would take the last conference in january to be argued this term. it really wrong -- receive the addition not just the amicus brief on our side but opposing certiorari to say this is not an important case don't pay attention which is an unusual strategy. suggesting perhaps that the case is very important and the court granted it. it does have big implications of some companies have started to adjust to the existing rule. and then facilities and then start to collect the sales tax and if you buy through amazon but a lot of internet retailers will not. this has big implications how commerce occurs in the united states it is called showroom ring to go into a best buy to see different televisions to enjoy their incredible customer service and learn a lot from the technician and based on what you see and then buy it for 7% less because they have to charge you the local and state sales tax. that adds up to bil

court. if you think about the number of cases they hear each term, that is well over a full term's worth for the panelists. i want to thank the supreme court for giving us interesting stuff to talk about today. emerging,as one theme it has to be redistricting. my colleagues in the press room with agree it seems like there is one of these homer simpson signs. it has been x number of hours since the with a going to sister marilyn. heard insummer she world argument in october. she said it was probably the most important case the supreme court was going to decide this term. -- cannot election officials in maryland. who better to discuss redistricting men small -- paul smith? exactly why the case was taken. i think it was a big surprise. all merely going along thinking we can't. january february committee will get a new map. come december, they take an entirely new case out of maryland. -- the surprise was they didn't have to do that. they could have done what they normally do when they have a ca

courts in st. louis area for both of you, that set a question decided by the lower courts. what were the important aspects of the case for people to understand? >> the first part i would emphasize is the the lower court cases. the first trial, where there is a technicality. we need to understand the technicality. there are three different lawsuits. one for dred, one for harriet and one for the other two kids. the claim that dred made was that he was being falsely held against his will. mr. russell testifies, yes, i hired dred from mr. emerson for a set amount of money. held against hs will. on examination, it was revealed, it wasn't him but his wife. it was his wife, mrs. russell hadn't testified at trial. mr. russell's testimony was struck as hear say. there was no evidence that he was treated as a slave. so the case was dismissed. but the judge was sympathetic. the judge was sympathetic, so there was a retrial. at retrial, mr. emerson testified he paid the -- mr. emerson testified he paid the mon

supreme court. in the state of the union speech. then the federal communications commission because of the failure of hawaii's emergency alert system. >> midway through supreme court term, attorneys and court watches at georgetown university law center discussed some of the key cases to be heard in the coming months. the court will be deciding cases related to congressional gerrymandering, immigration restrictions and taxes of online shopping. this is 90 minutes. >> the people who are getting their food just finish up that and proceed quietly. we will get the program started. i am the executive director -- [audio lost] our moderator is a georgetown graduate first and most important. she was once the editor of reporter for the -- and now she is just an independent contractor and a reporter. and amy really, i think, probably knows more about the supreme court than any person alive. with that, i will turn the program over to amy. >> that is a tough introduction to live up to. he also asked me to be ver

court. justice roberts himself, was a graduate of penn law. he went on to a tremendous career. he served as justice on the supreme court from 1930 until 1945, he then left the supreme court to become a dean of penn law. [laughter] don't get any ideas. [laughter] we honor his memory and legacy and there is no greater way to honor it then by justice ruth bader ginsburg tonight. it is now my pleasure tonight to introduce penn's president. her academic background as a moral and political philosopher is reflected in her commitment at penn to increasing diversity. she has won national recognition for her achievements. under her leadership, the university has become the leader in diversifying students. she is a member of the global university leaders forum and was a founding member of the global colloquium of university presidents which advises the un's secretary-general on issues. at penn and throughout the country, she has been a champion of free and open debate and civil society and has built a

supreme court? >> it went to the maryland court of appeals, which affirmed the validity of the maryland tax. and then they brought what cay all of a sudden a writ of error to the supreme court in september of 1818. the court took up jurisdiction of the case and set it for argument in the term that began the following february. and one of the things that richard ellis, an extraordinarily good historian, discovered during his own research on this case, was this was almost certainly a contrived case. he found some information in terms of a statement by the governor of maryland saying that, basically, they set this up precisely to test the constitutionality of the bank and this is not unheard of in american history. but it's, again, post-writing of my book, interesting insight into the bank was a significant issue. it had been a significant issue since 1791. and people wanted to resolve this question. >> they wanted it settled, whether or not there was constitutionality of a federal or national bank. >>

the supreme court historical society hosted this 50 minute program in the supreme court chamber. james: i am pleased to welcome you to the fourth of our four lectures and the lecture series on supreme court justices in presidential cabinets. tonight's lecture will focus on james byrnes, who during his lifelong career in politics and public service served not only as a public justice on this housesbut also in both of congress, as secretary of state for president truman and as governor of south carolina among many other accomplishments. i have no doubt that this evening's talk by professor milkis will be both exceptionally interesting and educational. i would like to welcome and to express the society's deep gratitude to our host, justice stephen breyer. justice breyer has been a very good friend to this society during his 23 years serving on this court. he has joined us for lectures, award functions, and dinners over the years. in 2016, his lecture at our annual meeting touched on the relevant insights he explored in his book, the court and the world: america's law and the new glo

second, he continued to campaign throughout his tenure on the supreme court asserting the supreme court was not only the dominant interpreter of the federal government but also he could say either one by doing so to disagree with the highest court of the state and that was the dominant controversy at the time. >> you have written a book about it see you think it is important but why should people 200 years later care about this case? >> it provides a series of foundations for the way things operate today. one of them is the notion of the ability of congress to do that which is necessary and proper to effectuate the constitutional compact between the states. the other people don't talk about is marshall's conception of the roles of congress. judgments about policy and what is necessary our judgments left to the congress it is part of the formulation central to the case from what is plainly adapted. but that deference to congressional deference of good policy is a very significant factor. the other thing that enters is marshall's willingness to sustain the bank of the united states at a p

>> judge shedd i don't think this court can take any substance from the supreme court stay order. this court was -- >> i didn't say substance. said, -- i'm schooling you north this court but you're saying we -- you can't take anything from that? any indication at all. >> i don't think the court can because the supreme court was very careful not to say a word about the merits or the equity. >> i have a question at judge shedd did. seems to he granted the stay at all the court had to fine there was a likelihood of success on the merits. >> i don't think that's. >> is that wrong. >> no state laws. >> don't say that. >> i don't think that's right, judge motz, because as we saw with the supreme court's previous stay, that one did detail they were issuing that order based on the view of the equities presented on the record. >> did say that. >> so i don't think we can assume as mr. mooppan sunninged the supreme court was saying something about the merits. >> in the normal case that is an important fact. >> justice is but the supreme court previously did not address the merit in ruling on

new york were state court opinions. there were only two that were federal court opinions. one was holden v hardy, that upheld an eight hour day for mining and manufacturing. health and safety provision. the other was acting versus kansas which of health another law, another eight hour day or 10 hour day for public employees, which is a whole different thing because public employees are part of the contract in a way. so both of those cases were the government is part of the contract. upheld. so all of the cases in the supreme court at the time this case came up upheld restrictions on hours. prof. barnett: it is somewhat of that the supreme court struck down regulations. it struck down some, but upheld far more than it struck down. i want to go back to what we said at the beginning of the show, because some of your viewers may not of been watching us at the beginning, the bake shop act was an elaborate health and safety law that the lochner court itself upheld as it -- a legitimate regulation to protect the public, but other people as well, including the bakers. that is the

embraced today you are seeing it the court and it startedded with the burger court. warrentarted with the court with terry versus ohio. they sort of really set the shift on that court. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> absolutley. i find myself with 30 seconds left. i apologize the time caller. nu.wo programs for we'll deal with the warren court which is another in the sr.s are of case and spend our final talkhour in that program about the court overall and the reviews andthese what it has done to this judicial process and talk about that in a bigger way. we hop you will be with us for that program. we close here. i want to ask you about what people should talk away the fact , the citizen like dollree a land lane focus of mark case. >> the first point there is a story behind the cases they real people with real challenges and they in the case mapp involve people who have personal strength tot situation and to go to the courts for relief and to fight her way all the way to the court. so really our cases are about individuals that have lasting americans andl anyone of us could be t

the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i did not know anything abouthe law. i did not know how this decision might go. but when they announced that justice scalia was going to read the decision, and i liked -- this is my quote. here is what scalia said. we are not here today to a race -- erase the second amendment from the united states constitution. [applause] emily: [laughter] mr. heller: i did not know anything, but i know we had won something. emily: god rest his soul, justice scalia. mr. heller: rest in peace. that is what he will be forever famous for. emily: i have never asked you -- we are good friends, but when you go to the supreme court, and if anyone has ever been there, it is an amazing american experience. you don't get to see it on tv. when you are there, it is lawyers and governments and all stuff, but it is all about the case of just dick heller. that is it. what was it like sitting in the front row with all these justices in front of you? mr. heller: it is amazing. the supreme court gallery for observers is not much bigger than this i

the court convened at 11:00 a.m. that morning, and would usually adjourn sometime around 2:00 or 3:00, depending how long the arguments went. usually there was a restriction of two lawyers per side in a case. but the supreme court waived that requirement so that each side had three attorneys, and each attorney was able to speak up to three days. beautiful spaces inside the capitol. you can still visit them when you go on tour in the building here in washington. so the supreme court at the time had seven justices, and the chief justice as we mentioned was john marshall. he's often referred to as the great chief justice, not the first, the fourth. why does he get that description? >> when he came chief justice, he made a decision to put the court in its -- what he viewed as its proper place. when oliver ellsworth resigned as chief justice during the last month of adams' administration, he turned initially to john jay to be the next chief justice, in fact, john jay was confirmed and then adams sent a letter to jay sayin

we lost in the lower courts because current supreme court precedent is against us. about 40 years ago in a case called detroit board of education, the supreme court said that this practice was okay. it said you can't make people give money to certain union political activities, contributions to candidates, other things with my call and electioneering, but you can make them pay the union for their proportionate share of the unions cost of marketing on their behalf. how did the supreme court reached that result in a boot? normally in a first amendment case that was involving forced support for speech or forced foh association, the courts would apply strict scrutiny which is a high form of scrutiny or what they call exacting scrutiny, which is also pretty rigorous. under those standards the government would have to show at a minimum that its infringement on first amendment rights serves a compelling governmental interest, and that there's no other way the government could serve the interest that would infringe on peoples rights less. you think that's the role, then in

court but. these people who were arrested who were convicted they convicted as i guess relationally a. kidnapping of. these people that was in. the state of emergency which was declared to bring the heavily. into the current country for example. be. president. was a respite and he. was a firearms and trying to imagine that the president. if the supreme court. ruling was. limited. partner who will for the for national thread will be out and really like a person who has a sas. itself. these are people who for the for national threat. to the yemeni religion the. i think the nine. i think president ja maybe we should go forward president. doesn't mean you're going to have written you a little dry on the. stage and even to. jeffrey in saying that crimes have to be investigated as that's one way out what are you hearing so another. thing that people are putting forward on line is that perhaps there needs to be international how to get out of this crisis this is not they who says india and sri lanka ha

has said let state courts do it before federal courts start. >> eventually federal courts can. you're right. state courts are certainly authorized to do it. they are supposed to get the first shot. there was a case in the 11th circuit i heard where the people passed constitutional limits of the state constitutional floor on how the legislature does this redistricting and it was challenged as a violations of the elections clause. that challenge was thrown out in the 11th circuit. i don't think they sought cert. maybe they did. i can't remember. doesn't seem like a strong argument. >> do we have any more redistricting questions? before we move on? kimberly. >> will it matter at all that the pennsylvania judges here are themselves elected and sort of part of the political process? >> the question is whether the fact pennsylvania judges are elected to the supreme court, will that affect anything. i wouldn't think so. the basic principle of what role the state courts play, what role the federal courts play is pretty well-established and most of the justices in most state courts are

the district court agreed with us. >> even had an executive order to the supreme court is an executive order to the supreme court above the standards as well. >> they stated for the individuals but to not have a bona fide cynic commute. microphone or talk louder. >> the district court agreed with us that the proclamation satisfies requirements of 1182f. i like to begin their. >> you mention the critical differences between the proclamation now an executive order can you delineate what you think are the most important critical differences? >> the procedural component to it. on the procedural side the critical differences it would involve a multiagency process for the president instructed these agencies to see what was missing. >> i did not read the if any into what the president directed people. he directed that certain countries be found to be banned. >> section today -- which country should be banned. >> in section two a of the order whether there is information that foreign governments are not providing. it didn't say that there is information. >> it didn't say if any either correct.

the supreme court's admits lawyers to the supreme court are. every year they would get half a dozen or more complaints from orthodox jews who said we're so proud of our membership in the supreme court bar, but we cannot frame our certificate and put it on the wall because it says in the year of our lord so and so, and he's not our lord. i spoke to the chief about this. he said we will take it up in conference. [laughter] justice ginsburg: in one of my colleagues whose name i will not discussed said in the year of our lord it was good enough for brandeis and goldberg and before he got there i said it is not good enough for ginsberg. [applause] justice ginsburg: it took a while for the cycle to complete. at first they said for the orthodox jews we will have in the year so and so. we liked when it set on the certificate of the independence of the united states. so please keep that on our certificate. a certificate your membership in the supreme court, you have no choice. you can have just the year 2018, in the year of our lord or the independence

president in court. prosecutor says ramish declared in both day that no intimidation not interference and none of business is in hire the nice case was the stop to present in call it the appeal court spoke of serious with this intimidation for the context of no search brummer stated this in belgrade front of everybody me that in the notes case there was no record of any intimidation or interference or any. blockage that somebody shows a board and presence already according to the new york times eighteen people have eighteen witnesses had to be subpoenaed because they refused to appear in your court and others inside the courtroom said who they are who testified that major debt interest when my trial was finished in charge of the prosecution of fees in the hague was says ramos he stated that the got the prosecutor who was sitting in front of the stated there's an unfortunate media and not only media many are sources sconce of them from both a bogut has an agenda when it comes to kosovo the split through t

the democrats said the fisa court was a document. >> we can't have a secret court operate like this in america where they'll use it against political enemies. >> the political memo said andrew mccabe testified they would have not had the warrant without the dossier and gets a passing reference in the press release fact sheet. >> shannon: thank you very much. the president weighing in on twitter saying this, the democratic memo response on surveillance abuses say legal bust. just confirms all the terrible things that were done. so illegal. the democrats have been claiming the remember memo alleging abuses left out key points and now their 10-page memo is public. what's it tell us? jim jordan joining us. if you like the gop memo, you liked it and thought the democratic memo maybe bolstered the points they made and then we have on the left, nancy pelosi saying the release of the democrats' memo helped set the record straight on the investigation and it's imperative they end their political charade. the left things they won. >> one of the thing congress schiff's memo point out is they were

supreme court of columbia. it goes is a d.c. case, to the supreme court. that is the old way to appeal. involve slaves imported into the district of columbia. district of columbia local law is coveredc by maryland where we by today, and for a while virginia law in what is today alexandria, virginia. retro8, there was the session where they gave alexandria back to virginia. these cases involve what happened in those jurisdictions. those jurisdictions are governed by maryland and virginia. i don't want to get into the technicalities. we don't have three or four hours to explain them. i think i do a good job in the book. the issue is this. if you moved to the district, you had to register the amount of slaves you brought to the district. you had a certain amount of time to do it and you had to assert you are moving to make it your permanent residents. you could not import slaves if you lived in the district unless you inherited them. you could not go to virginia, buy a slave, and bring it to the maryland portion.

the court didn't understand. i think what the court here obviously does now is about about backlogs and the way the immigration process is structured. if you want to apply for cancellation of removal, you have to take what they call a continuance. >> would you clarify the relief that you're seeking now? i don't know of any regime, maybe there is one, where someone who is being detained has to be brought before a judge every six months. is it, as you pointed out, with the printout -- pretrial to tenney's -- detainees it says an immediate bail hearing. is there any --? >> yes, your honor. the government's own agencies, the ones who lost their right to live here. there's two of them. the second one provides ig bond hearings every six months for people who are especially dangerous. they are a national security threat, or sex offenders. 241.4 provides it every year. there are other civil commitments that do it every year. >> this is a group of unrepresented people. >> it can be done by congress, it can be done by regu

>> the supreme court said so. the supreme court did that. it was argued there is no jurisdiction for various reasons and they decided on the merits but not sure there is a decision on that. would you agree on that? >> the specific justice ability question but one hopes -- >> you ought not to say. >> and the statutory argument, i guess the complaints you have about it seems to me i agree with my colleagues, doesn't sound like we can say to the president of the united states you are illogical here. you don't follow the procedure here. is your argument basically a structural argument, congress sets out a procedure and it is because you haven't complied with that procedure is that what you are saying? i am not understanding it. >> the first is the president has to 11802f has not made the requisite findings that this is detrimental -- secondly, what 1182s can't possibly permit is the president to contravene, to rewrite large sections of ina. and 11502a, and the 65s's overall purpose of moving, rejecting the historical practice of the united state

we will get into the court stuff. we are focusing on you the man, first of all as you tell a story . i never knew you when to think tanks. how many of you go to think tanks -- dick: what is a think tank? emily: you had to do all this research on your own, and neither of us are lawyers. you never know about them. people started coming to you and supporting it. and it goes through -- what was the first ruling it had? gun,aid i can't own a which the constitution second amendment, all of you who have your constitutions, pull them out, second amendment, the right .nd bearing arms no, no, no. when you start building this case, what was the first decision made in the court on your right to have a gun at home? dick: let's see. the first decision would have been -- since it was a federal issue, firearm is a federal case, it went to the d.c. district court it is called. and let's see. it was a struggle to get there. flip-flopcision back-and-forth, and finally we won in the appellate court. d.c. said we are going to challenge th

court. we are respecting that. happily there so many other topics to talk about. justice ginsburg, many readers of ours are interested in your jewish life and identity. and how it shaped your judicial career in outlook. as we sit in the sanctuary seems like a good place to start. you grew up in brookland. [applause] family not devout but very identified. you described your own mother lighting candles on friday nights and i have heard how you enjoyed celebrating passover with your family he said the four questions were the best part of -- i'm wondering why. >> the youngest child was asking about this evening and the celebration. the past why is passover night different from all of her third nights. the child asking a question and the rest are answering the child's question. just one of many illustrations of how jews are learning and want children to be well-educated. >> a few years ago with the rabbi you wrote about the heroic and visionary women in the passover story. did you notice that whe

the court will go ahead and courts exist courtis created the. 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 all that any move to stop this court would risk everything that causes the as a cheat anyone who supports this they said would be rejecting the cause of this partnership with other countries including possible integration into the e.u. and later so the stakes here are very high and they are they are the are of a road that score so 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 it's a big asian towards national and international law well not if you try to amend the way the. peace initiative that they exist 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 whether it goes in it will not it looks now it looks not really it's not going to go in. one of

-- my supreme court favorite quote, there are a lot of interesting stories from the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i did not know anything about the law, i did not know how the decision might go, but when they announced it, justice scalia was going to read the decision. and this is my quote. here is what scalia said. "we are not here today to a race the second amendment from the united states constitution." [applause] [laughs] >> i did not know anything, but i know we had one something. -- won something. -- weave never asked you are very good friends, but i have never asked you this. when you go to the supreme court, and i know it is an amazing american experience. we do not get to see it on tv. when you are there, this case, with lawyers and governments and cities and all that stuff, and it is all about -- the case comes down to dig heller -- dick heller, that's it. what was it like with all the justices in front of you? >> the supreme court gallery for observers is not much bigger than his inner area. >> very small. >> very small. it was full of

they didn't tell the court any of this? they did until the court where the money came from?hey didn't tell the court they also knew that steele hated trump? because steele mentioned it to bruce orr. we go to that in a minute. there is substantial evidence suggesting that mr. steele material he the fbi, one which bears on his credibility. it starts, yet the fisa applications nor the existence of a news article dated september 23rd, 2016, which in particular contains some of the same dossier information aboutmp mr. page compiled by mr. steel on which the fbi relied in its application. not exquisitely stated, this is presumably, the article written by michael is a cough, yahoo! news, titled "u.s. intel officials broke ties between u.d kremlin. "it attempts a to explain away e inconsistency between steele's assertion in the existence of the article. apparently to shield mr. steele's credibility on which it still relied for the renewal request of the fisa application. you got to renew it every 90 days. it says, give them of the information contained in a september 23rd news artic

the supreme court upheld that. whether it took the vietnam war to break the barrier of national free-speech, i think it is a fascinating question of a sociological matter. but i am just a dumb lawyer, i don't know i can answer that descriptively. jeffrey: debbs runs for president in 1920 from a jail cell. mike: and gets a million votes. jeffrey: an astonishing story and inspiring story of constitution -- i won't say evolution -- but justices of different perspectives coming to recognize the insights of jefferson and madison. that freedom of opinion can't be alienated or surrendered to government under any circumstance because our opinions are the product of our reason. as creatures of the enlightenment we can't alienate our reason to the state because defines who we are as -- akhil: both are true. [laughter] jeffrey: well, i think madison had it first. we have another first amendment speech and it involves student protest. it is called tinker versus des moines. 1969. height of the vietnam era. here students are dec

they purposefully lying to a court, gregg jarrett. they are lying to a fisa court. fisa means okay, secret, top secret, spy on american citizens. on this case a presidential candidate, but all the information is coming from your opponent. why bother to tell the judge that part. >> there were some chances. the fbi and the department of justice, to do the right thing and at every turn, time after time, they did the wrong thing. >> sean: who is in legal jeopardy tonight, gregg jarrett. >> nibble who signed off on this fisa warrant penalty of perjury. anybody who represented themselves as an officer of the court and mitt add fraud on the court. when they first learned that all of this came from the russians, experts on lies and deception, they should have said, mr. steele, goodbye and take your dossier with you. >> sean: the eye ron any, real quick, we are running out of time. the irony of all of this is hillary clinton paid for russian lies, dr. gorka and sara. >> the collusion. russian collusion is right here. it's right here. this is your russian collusion. hillary c

years on theher 25 supreme court as well as groundbreaking contributions to american prudence obama court and as her tremendous career as andgal scholar, litigator, lower court judge before she joined the court. himself, was a graduate of penn law. he went on to a tremendous career. he served as justice on the supreme court from 1930 until 1945, he then left the supreme court to become a den -- dean of penn law. don't get any ideas. [laughter] we honor his memory and legacy and there is no greater way to honor it then by justice ruth bader ginsburg tonight. it is now my pleasure tonight to introduce pens president -- penn's president. background as a moral and political philosopher is reflected in her commitment at penn to increasing diversity. recognitionnational for her achievements. leadership, the the leaderhas become in diversifying students. she is a member of the global and wasty leaders forum a founding member of the global colloquium of university presidents which advises the un's secretary-general on issues. at penn and throughout the country, she has been a champion of free and

she will joined the court. justice roberts himself, was a graduate of penn law. will will and he served for 20 years on the faculty and then went on to a tremendous career. he served as justice on the supreme court from 1930 until 1945, he then left the supreme court to become a dean of penn law. don't get any ideas. [laughter] we honor his memory and legacy and there is no greater way to honor it then by justice ruth bader ginsburg tonight. it is now my pleasure tonight to introduce penn's president. she has been a visionary leader at penn and nationally and internationally as the eighth president of the university of pennsylvania. her academic background as a moral and political philosopher is reflected in her commitment at penn to increasing diversity. civic leadership and service, she has one -- won national recognition for her achievements. under her leadership, the university has become the leader in diversifying students. it has significantly expanded the number of low income and middle income and first-

the court didn't understand. what the court does about backlogs and the way the immigration is structured, you have to take what they call a continuance. >> would you clarify the relief you're seeking now. i don't know of any regime where someone being detained, has to be brought before a judge every six months. the pretrial detainees says an immediate bail hearing. is there any? >> yes, your honor. >> yes? >> yes your honor. own agencies,'s e ones who lost their right to live here two of them. the second one provides ig bond hearings. they are detaining them notwithstanding his they are a national security threats or sex offenders and there are a couple of other provisions there. 241.14 provides it every year. there are other civil commitments that do it every year. it's true six months is rare although they do it in that context. this is a group of unrepresented people. >> it can be done by congress, by regulation. it's quite something to find six months in the constitution. why does it say six months in the co

the supreme court historical society hosted this 50 minute program in the supreme court chamber. james: i am pleased to welcome you to the fourth of our four lectures and the lecture series on supreme court justices in presidential cabinets. i have no doubt that this evenings talk by officer milkis will be exceptionally interesting and educational. i would like to welcome and to express the society's deep gratitude to our gracious host justicening, associate breyer? has joined us for innumerable lectures, what functions, and dinners over the years. 2016, his lecture at our annual meeting touched on the very relevant insights he the courtin his book " and the new law. his work appears twice in our society journal of supreme court history, writing on a cherokee indian struggle for their land and in 2010 revealing the dred scott decision of 1857 in its historical context. speaking of writing, justice breyer is a prolific author, having written or cowritten more than a dozen books and numerous court opinions and dissents. as he himself has said, he lives much of his professional life

first of all, most people don't know we are losing four courts. we can't lose courts. we don't have enough to begin with. secondly, the seniors play in the morning. we play doubles for an hour and-a-half. under this plan, reservations are for an hour. most importantly, the seniors are offered a lower rate. if you are a for profit operator you are not going to put the low-paying seniors in there. you will try to get the courts out on lessons, you are going to encourage tennis camps, do all of that stuff. i just know our group is not going to have enough space. >> we played doubles for an hour and-a-half. you can't play doubles for an hour. after you rally there is time for one set. that needs changed. my request is please consider a special break for seniors. we need an hour and-a-half in the morning for our group. nothing wrong with reserving the courts for seniors, and also it is possible in our pinto revise the -- our opinion that it takes up a lot of room. i would encourage the changes. the group of us would love to work with the recreation and parks commission. we

the supreme court upheld that. whether it took the vietnam war to break the barrier of free speech, i think is a fascinating question. it's a sociological matter but i'm just a dumb lawyer. i don't know that i can answer that description. >> the dense precedent is amazing and does runs for president from a jail cell. >> he gets 1 million votes. absolutely astonishing. and then an inspiring story of constitutional, i will say evolution. i'll say a precedent of different perspectives coming to recognize the insight of jefferson and madison that speech in national rights that comes from god or nature and not government and that freedom of opinion can be alienated worse surrendered to government because our opinions are the product of the reason and its creatures of the enlightenment, we get alienate our reason to this because it defines who we are as human beings. >>. >> that is what madison said. >> i think madison had first. >> all right, we have another person in free-speech and it involves protest, called thinker

the supreme court upheld that. whether it took the vietnam war to break the barrier of national free-speech, i think it is a fascinating question of a sociological matter. i am just a dumb lawyer, i don't know i can answer that. >> debbs runs for president in 1920 from a jail cell. and gets a million votes. >> an astonishing story and an aspiring story -- inspiring , i will constitutional say resolution, but justice is coming to recognize the insights of jefferson and madison. that freedom of opinion can't be alienated or surrendered to government under any circumstances, because our opinions are the product of our reason. as creatures of the enlightenment we can't alienate our reason to the stage. it defines who we are. that is what medicine -- >> both are true. [laughter] we have another student speech. it is cultic or versus des moines -- it is called tinker versed a moyne -- versus des moines. students are protesting the war. we are about to have a march on washington by students who are not happy with current

i am excited about the safer courts in the condition of the courts and the secure access with the singlepoint of access with addition of lights, the courts will be playable on weekday evenings creating much more playing time for those who have to work during the day, and also league matches will be able to play in the evening rather than just weekends freeing the courts for recreational play. i encourage you to approve this and i thank you. i am happy to be part of this civic process and thank you again for your service. >> thank you. >> i will read the rest of the cards. emily, katy, david and chany. >> i am alicia chew. i am a golden gate park volunteer. as a senior i look forward to playing pickle ball three to four times each week. i socialize and exercise with a multigenerational multi-ethnic group of pickle ball enthusiasts. national and international visitors stopped by to hear the punk of the whiffle ball. we invite you in, introduce the game, take pictures and e-mail it back to them. this become was a vacation postcard playing pickleball with us in golden gate park. that is why

the supreme court. every year they would get half a dozen or more complaints from the orthodox jews and say we are so proud of our membership in this theme court. it's in the year of our lord. the cycle was to complete and they would have just been a year then there were complaints. we liked what it said about the independence of the united states. just the year 2018 with the independence of the united states speak [inaudible] after today for the sitting day and the first response. it's not very convincing for the chief. they had worked so hard on this case do you want to take away from the opportunity to present their case and require them to have a substitute. [applause] it's had a really interesting question. hyou once described an opinion y the israeli justice that forbids torture even in what they call the ticking time bomb situation. it had a tremendous persuasive value so i'm wondering as an american jewish insurer breast, do you feel any special affinity with the look of the israeli supreme cour

on february first the supreme court ruled the supreme court ruled and ordered the release of a number of political prisoners including former president mohamed nasheed immediate and the rain statement of twelve m.p.'s who had been unconstitutionally sacked by the elections commission president ya mean immediately cracked down on and said and he defied the supreme court ruling and said he would not implement the supreme court ruling and this is where the standoff started the president ya mean then declared a state of emergency he had the military and the police stormed the supreme court and dragged the chief justice the chief justice of the country he had the chief justice dragged across the floor and jailed the chief justice and another judge at the supreme court and president ya mean refuses to comply with the supreme court ruling this is where the standoff started and the same evening president yarmouth arrested a leader of a political opposition president mahmud of the guy who would rule the country before president bashir president jambi had has also used the state of emergency fo