on the court's docket. they really have an incredibly diverse docket. all the cases i've talked about a term or two before just to go through a couple of cases the number of people have identified the gerrymandering cases is perhaps the most important cases that the court has before it. i'm not sure that the court will be able to agree on an outcome in the case but across the corden i know justice ginsburg has publicly said that these are the most important cases before the court and i think the issue is it is underscored by the fact that they have considered two of these cases the gerrymandering case and the maryland case and have essentially every argument on the issues. it doesn't look from the argument transcript that the court has obviously a standard that they are going to apply in this case but time will tell. those cases certainly and i think everyone in this room has to understand the states in that case in the courts are actively involved in gerrymandering that will be a shift and it will have a b

of the court. it is more than a new member of the court and more than just justice court course which because the court is coming out of this rather externally. where, for over a year, they were operating as an eight-member court. i always tell people in describing the job of the spring court advocate, a working definition is somebody who tries to get five votes for his clients. that's really the name of the game and the supreme court. they really nailed it. your clients still have a word for that, it's called a loss. the name of the game is getting to five and it's pretty tricky to get to five out of eight especially when the court is quite closely divided. i think it created a very interesting dynamic. just to run through how this affected the court operation, back to the passing in 2015, immediately with the court going down to a members, he had an impact on the cases the court was deciding. in some cases, the court was so basically fundamentally divided that they simply couldn't decide the case

he took on the state courts in the supreme court and the state governments and the federal government and the u.s. constitution. and he hit it big. his name is clarence earl gideon. he argued there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial amend gets depends on the mount -- the amount of money he has. he argued there should not be what kind of justice for the rich, another for the poor. he blew one note on his trumpet, he blew it over and over. a man cannot get a fair trial without a lawyer. as he was not -- he would not retreat one which am this addition, this man has brought a profound change in the course of american jurisprudence. ♪ >> cbs reports, gideon's trumpet, the poor man and the law, based upon the book i anthony lewis. it is brought to by the shell oil company who also brings you super shell gasoline or good mileage and fleischmann's margarine, so delicious tasting because it is made from 100% corn oil. cbs reports, gideon's trumpet, the poor man and the law. here now is cbs news course pond it might look run ski. >> this is the supreme court of the united states. t

chief justice, and may it please the court: the ninth circuit erred in holding that this court's decisionn johnson compelled the conclusion that the definition of crime of violence in the ina's broader definition of aggravated felony is unconstitutionally vague. that is so for two reasons. first, the standard for assessing vagueness in the immigration context is not the one that's applicable in criminal cases. immigration removal is not a punishment for past conduct. it operates prospectively on the basis of the application of standards adopted by congress under which an alien is regarded as no longer conducive to the safety and welfare. justice ginsburg: but mr. kneedler, if you're -- if you're making the distinction that johnson was a criminal case and this is a civil case, this court has had a number of decisions saying that line is not so rigid. for example, mlb, taking away parental rights, is a civil proceeding. and yet the court said, as in a criminal proceeding, for an indigent party, the state must give the transcript free. and so, if you had followed a rigid criminal/civil, then

courts? >> i will make a final point that i do want to move on to the next but with the difference between redistricting again the court said the state could not use that planet had used for three elections that representatives and electric had come to report lung -- rely upon but another stipulation but with others in the redistricting case there has to be a legislature it can't go on with nothing else being done when that redistricting case the court said you may not use this plan. >> you have five minutes left move on. >> i would like to. >> for us the critical point to be made is the question whether the 2013 plan enacted by the state legislature was discriminatory on the intent of the legislature in 2013. this court has said repeatedly there is a procedure of good faith with respect to a legislative enactment and that is true even if a prior legislative enactment was found to be discriminatory. given the presumption of good faith is particularly strong because as discussed, the district

neither he nor restructuring in the agency nor by creating a hybrid court system or an appellate court outside of the executive branch will resolve these basic issues. moreover any restructuring would be complicated and expensive requiring resources that would be better directed towards improving and providing the office with more judges, more clerks and administrative staff. the argument are less than they would appear. having served under attorneys general from both parties, i never believed my judgment was in any way impinged by officials. nor do i believe that there was any important side effect i've been a former attorney anymore than the fact that i'd been a former congressional staffer. i also had a relatively high level of autonomy over my docket and the ability to rearrange cases and inappropriate situation most importantly in a professional manner and i expected all the parties but appeared before me to respect the decline of the tribunal. there was no reason for anyone to since they were anywhere except in the court of law like any other before a neutral. the arguments on th

courts? >> so that we make a final important point i do want to move on to the merits there is a big difference between redistricting that the court was saying the plan that i used over three elections the representatives from the electorate have come to rely upon but another important distinction is that the state could go without the statute and the redistricting case it has to be distracting of the legislature just can't go on with nothing further being done so that case when the court says you may not use this plan. >> you have about five minutes left can you move on? >> i'd like to. arrest the critical point to be made is that question whether the 2013 plan acted by the state legislature was discriminatoryry turns on the intent of the legislature in 2013 and this court has said repeatedly there is a presumption of good faith with respect to the legislative enactment and that is true even if the prior enactment was found to be discriminatory. here the presumption of good faith is strong b

court should change. some scholars and immigration advocates believe the courts need to be completely overhauled. they argue that congress should create a separate article one immigration court outside the jurisdiction of the department of justice and the executive branch. in their view, an article one court would create efficiencies in management, reduce case backlogs and ensure immigration judges remain impartial and independent. but, of course, on every complex topic, there's more than one point of view. not everybody agrees a new court system is really what's needed. instead, they argue that creating an article one court would be duplicative of the current system and do nothing to resolve the current case backlogs. to these folks, the real problem involves resource challenges and loopholes in our current immigration laws. earlier administrations, both republican and democrat, have struggled with how to reduce the case backlogs in the immigration courts. and unfortunately, congress is never provided th

i court. we concluded an article i court is likely to be viewed as more independent as a true judicial body to engender the greatest level of confidence in its results to attract the best candidates for judgeships and to offer the best balance between independence and accountability to the political branches of government. in our view the immigration courts must be moved out of the department of justice to ensure that judges have full decisional independence without fear of repriceal or improper political influence. the need was emphasized by the recent announcement on until pending on case quotas for immigration judges. we believe this would spur more appeals as well as burden the federal courts as well as result inremands. timely disposition of cases is critically important but not if it is to come at the expense of due process. finally, i want to express our dismay over the department of justice's planned suspension of the legal orientation program. contrary to what you just heard, the lop

in statearenthood lost courts. before the supreme court in connecticut. the connecticut supreme court .efused to reconsider arguments they said that the law was not unreasonable or arbitrary. it was a proper exercise of the state. parenthood appeals to the u.s. supreme court. parttie was an important of the process. can you talk about what her role was? >> she was the main attorney in the courts in connecticut. she filed very forceful arguments. at the uplink, introducing the idea that this was a violation of people's rights of privacy. previously, the arguments were more about this is a threat to people's life if they do not use contraception. she is now introducing the idea that people have rights that may not be articulated in the constitution but they are important for personal freedom. is a professor at him or a law school. law school. there is a terrific archive of her professional work at emory law. i had to put in that plug because it is a wonderful resource. the new york times, january 18, 19 63, had the headline, too loose appeal on birth contro

by the district court. because even if the court agrees that the order ran afoul of some constitutional concerns, it is certainly an injunction beyond the relief appropriate in this case. that is both for freestanding purposes and for the general powers of district courts. i think we are playing with the general rules of the equitable relief that should be tailored to remedy the injury but not go beyond that. and a host of cases from this court, los angeles, -- therefore that we cited.to make clear that the relief should be appropriate to remedy the injuries by the plaintiffs but a class action should not go beyond that. and here my friends on the other side have put forward, no theory as to why they may a nationwide injunction.if you think that was appropriate, but was necessary then was to craft a remedy that restricted enforcement of the departments, with respect to the two cities given optical beyond that. there is a host of cases that makes that clear. there certainly are other cases we we dispute the

i think you have seen that not just in the supreme court but in the lower court.e will see that trend continues, but i do think that might be part of it. it was just a different era in the country. >> it was. you say it so well. and there was an article in the nrkt recently about an academic stud dwri that says as the court and the country become more polarized, the judges are asking more questions of each other rathern than the advocates. it leaves less opportunity for open-minded listening, and yet it does happen. the carpenter case was so interesting. the justice had powerful questions about property rights, seems to be reflecting ome interventions, including a professor from chicago who wrote in block sbisa. they seemed to be introduces in are core rooms. maybe we will see in carpenter another change of mind. >> the bench changed. the bench used to be straight, and they have curved the bench request stices questions one another. they are talking to each other through counsel. >> that contributes to lots of conversation going on during oral argument. let's list

he started 14 cases before the supreme court and other federal and state court. david previously served as assistant to the solicitor general and law clerk to judge eugene davis of the federal circuit. he's a graduate of brigham young university and university of chicago law school. then we will hear from jonathan william, chief economist and vice president for the center for fiscal reform at the american legislative exchange council. jonathan worked with congressional leaders and members of the private sector to develop fiscal policy solutions for this day. she previously served as staff economist at the tax foundation. jonathan's work has appeared in "the wall street journal," "forbes" and many other publications and is frequently appeared as a guest on the "pbs newshour" another tv programs produce a graduate of northwood university. then we'll hear from michael greenwood, professor of law at my alma mater company antonin scalia law, administrative law and federal court. previously a scholar at the american enterprise institute, chairman of the competitive ent

she clerked in federal courts for the 11th circuit court of appeals.elcome, both of you. >> great to be here. >> we're going to start with the history. this all concerns a set of laws called the criminal syndication laws. i told you i was going to have a hard time with that, syndiclism laws. many states have them. when did they developed in the country? >> they were adopted starting in 1919, the world war i era, as a response to the spread or feared spread of anarchy and communism and socialism. >> and did they all basically do the same thing? >> pretty much. so the language in the ohio statute was quite typical, that it criminalized any advocacy of violence that was directed toward bringing about social change or economic change. they also used the word "terrorism." >> it is interesting that our case that we're looking at deals with ku klux klan, but this really was a fear of communism that got this all started. so can you add any more history to what the country was worried about as all of these states were passing laws? >> yeah, i mean i do think th

appeals court. to do tell us how many cases come your way and how many in a given year your court would work on? it is about 700 and some. 30% to 40% are not appeal from a trial. they are challenges to an agency's decision. regulationputs out a and someone who is regulated by can challenge it on certain grounds and say it is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to statutory authorization, even that it is unconstitutional. 45% can also be appealing the decision finding them or violating the legislation. those agency decisions constitute 35% to 45% of our cases and take up 75% to 80% of our time. job is toircuit's provide a dull supervision for the administrative state -- is to provide adult supervision for the administrative state. [laughter] said,one of my colleagues i do not see anything here other than the ordinary lunacy. what kind of staff does the d.c. court of appeals have? the resources available to you and your colleagues? >> there are 11 authorized judge may and each have as many as four law

court ismesh court -- the term -- a rough analog might be that, in the past 15 years, this court has sometimes a knowledge that it's prior decisions have used the word jurisdictional in a less than precise manner. the court has sometimes said statutes that we previously characterized as jurisdictional are not really that. they're something else. to be sure, lower courts during y ofinterim were war rejecting the statement, but the obligated toeel go through the steps of deciding whether the steps to eliminate a prior precedent had been established. wrongply said we used the shorthand, we were not wrong as to the substance. >> do you believe that there is a constitutional minimum, so that even a small business using the internet may have greater andens than amazon therefore they have a constitutional claim under your orton sits impose the burdens on any micro business? i think the correct answer, the answer that is most the president is that there is no constitutional minimum. if you have an out-of-state retailer who is deliberately selling a particular physical good within the state,

if the court withdraws the relief granted by the district court in this manner. what we have is the atty. gen.'s memorandum which my colleague well describe the limitations of. it wasn't even issued to the other agency that even under the premise of justice's narrow reading is charged with implement in, section 9 a. we don't actually know what the apartment of security things about this reading. i want to make another note. we have seen between the district court and now that the department of justice, not always the final word on how the grantmaking components interpret section 1373 or the threats to the county. mr. riegler represented the district court he didn't think santa clara violated 1373. as a motion for summary judgment, his colleague pointed to the fact that the parts of justice hadn't issued 1373 compliance letter to the county is evidence that there was no standing in this matter. months later the county received exactly such a letter to screen with a view the county didn't violate 1373. there are many things that the administration could have done t

the supreme court. set to be heard, trump versus hawaii. david savage, is there any reason why the court save this until the last day? >> it is a big deal. this case has gone through a series of cycles. this was the first controversy of his presidency. the travel ban came up the first week. it has gone through a series of iterations. the short answer, the third version came out in the fall. it was changed, struck down in the night circuit. the supreme court agreed to hear it. they have a three-month time they agree to hear cases and then it is argued. they wanted to get this finally decided that they had to put it on in late april. host: what is the question being decided today? guest: there are two big arguments. one is that trump has overstepped his power under the immigration laws, and the law does not allow him to pick and choose countries and say no more immigrants from these countries. the challengers say this is about religious discrimination. word, this is a muslim ban. that is what the presiden

they have specialized courts, family courts, traffic courts and so on. family courts are fairly limited in their transit -- and their jurisdiction. -- i and their jurisdiction. they are based on federal law. now i will leave this part of thatalk and go to problems we are facing. in 1789. into effect to mes been amended sometimes. the first 10 or the bill of rights. that was all -- they were all ratified in 1791. it's only been 17 time since the has been but it altered by the supreme court interpretation of various causes and i think the greatest question hovering over the court is this -- of the court interpret the words of the constitution as they were used at the time of the framing? or is it legitimate for the court to view those words with a different meaning, one that would not be recognized by the framers? here is what some scholars have said. >> we don't have a religion. we do not have an ethnicity. we have a constitution. >> our constitution is special because it is a written constitution. >> the constitution is idiot proof. we have seen the test

we are saying it has always been the role from decisions in the court and the lower court in a basically unbroken line that when a party is before a u.s. port and a court issues an order to the party that says produce information, that is domestic conduct. it is viewed as to mr. conduct not only in the united states -- viewed as domestic conduct not only in united states but in international law. justice ginsburg: something has to happen abroad. if there are computers in ireland, something has to happen to those computers to get the emails back to the united states. mr. dreeben: yes. for court has a test determining if the application of a statute that has some domestic conduct and foreign conduct is domestic or extraterritorial. for thece alito put it court, one has to look at the focus of the statute. if the focus of the statute has domestic conduct in view, that it is a domestic application of the statute even if other conduct must occur abroad. justice gorsuch: why would that be the case using the focus test? wouldn't it take cognizance of the fact that information has to be taken ab

-- supreme court? >> they filed a petition for discretionary review. era, thedern area -- supreme court takes a small percentage of cases. case, the law was clear. you had to have physical , you could use a ,evice placed on the outside essentially a large year -- ear. the law was clear. the supreme court took this case because there was deep concern about the modern era and the evolution of communication and the concern that the law at the time did not address those issues. >> what about the phone company? the 1960's, the phone company had been cooperative. putfbi asked if they could one of the booths out of order to set up the microphone -- to set up the recorder. the phone company was cooperative. they did not ask the phone company to put a wiretap on it. maybe they were concerned about this, although i don't think it would have been a problem. >> wiretapping laws were just being worked out. they did not refuse to cooperate. the phone company went along. >> marks was a famous defender of the accused.

-- supreme court?> was they got their decision, they had a chance to file a petition for discretionary review. in the modern era the supreme , court takes a small percentage of cases. --typically takes question cases of national importance or where there is a split on the lower court. in this case, the law was clear. you had to have physical penetration. goldman, another important law, made it clear that you could use a device placed on the outside, ear.tially a large the law was clear. far as i recall, there was not a circuit split on this question. the supreme court took this case because there was deep concern about the modern era and the evolution of communication and the concern that the law at the time did not address those issues. >> what about the phone company? was the cooperation a given? >> in the 1960's, the phone company had been cooperative. they went to the phone company without a warrant and asked if they could put the booth out of order. the phone company was cooperative. they did not

what the district court had done. if the district court had reached districting, they could pick out among the issues the district court resolved, which it wants the basis for decision. jus. roberts: i think that is exactly right, the court can pick out different criteria which it wants to base its decision on. that could explain the hardest one. mr. kimberly: that is the one on which the district were based its decision. if this court were to pick out a different factor from the preliminary injunction test and decide it wants to affirm on that basis, it would basically be taken the discretion of the district court and taking it for itself to exercise. jus. sotomayor:jus. sotomayor: this is denial of preliminary injunction. you still have the next trial to go through or not? mr. kimberly: yes. jus. sotomayor: can you go through that trial without a ruling from us, and if not, why not? judge neil meyer said there were not many open issues, not the least of which was the motivation of the governor and his committee. for

>> in response to supreme court precedent, the circuit courts are adopted what's called a categoricalapproach of making determinations as to whether certain criminal convictions primarily in state court convictions should be considered removable offenses. there are multiple visions under the ina based on criminal convictions, but many of them are not defined specifically. the courts adopt or take this category approach with you compare the elements of the state court crime with a generic definition or the generic elements whatever the crime is under the ina. that has led to franklin can do a great deal of confusion because one cometh not always clear what the element are in some people confuse the elements with the means of committing the offense. number two, there's not always consensus of what the generic definition of any particular crime is. third, terms of some statutes are the visible. salinas cases if you can't tell what section the person was convicted under you can look at documents to make that determination. the divisibility analysis itself goes back to the issue of what ar

it went to court.d the time that we lost at the district level, students in mississippi won at the appeals level. that is because they had not substantially disrupted school. that was a burnside case. they found a way to develop this new standard, which had to do with substantial disruption for school. erik: interestingly enough, justice white, in his concurrence, the one thing he writes in his concurrence is that while they cite that case a lot, i do not agree with everything. he is trying to leave room for the next case where he decides maybe the school has a better point. at this case, the school had nothing to go on. susan: let's hear a bit of the argument on the other side for the des moines school district. the attorney was a veteran of the world war ii. he was a leader at the methodist church. we are going to hear part of what his oral argument was for the school district. >> if we understand the petitioner's position in this case, it is that the school officials are powerless to act until the d

supreme court. it defined the case. >> those of you who teach law should feel good about the effect this can have in your students. this started a brainstorm. a >> absolutely. this is the most exciting case to teaching criminal procedure. it inspires people to transform the amendment. you can translate in light of new technologies. that's what harvey schneider did. that's what c-span viewers should do with us tonight. >> we will hear more about the court overall. stewart is an important character. tell us about him. >> he served in world war ii and the navy reserves. often times, he was in dissent during the war era. in this case, in the majority, [ indiscernible ]. katz is known for concurrence. he had the votes. ultimately, a really influential came -- opinion command of this. >> you have written a biography on him. he is an important character in this case, why? >> he wrote the most important privacy dissent. i want viewers to go read it. and the onset case, you can get it online right now. keep

may it please the court. i'd like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal. 8 u.s.c. 1373 signed into law over 20 years ago by president clinton serves to encourage information sharing between local and state law enforcement officials. despite the law's aim in 2016 the inspector general for the department of justice expressed concern that many states and localities that were receiving federal grants were not complying with the terms of 1373. against that back drop, a 2017 executive order instructed the attorney general and the secretary of the department of homeland security, the two cabinet officials charged with enforcing section 1373, to utilize their legal authority to enforce the statute. including their authority to place conditions on grants that require compliance with the law, 1373. the executive order does not rewrite the law. it does not invoke new powers. and it does not instruct justice or d.h.s. to engage in unconstitutional activity. in fact, the executive order does just the opposite. at every tur

the court is already doing so. lower courts. one thing the heller court didn't do is provide precise instructions about what level of scrutiny to apply to gun laws. and the lower courts sort of thrashed around for a bit and ended up saying, well, intermediate scrutiny. we're going to require the government to show some evidence that whatever goal they are pursuing is important and the regulation they are going to propose is going to advance this goal. which is different from the lowest level of scrutiny putting the burden on the challenger to prove that the government is pursuing a goal or being irrational in the pursuit. i think doctrinal borrowing happens all the time and the first amendment is as good as any to furnish some tools to provide answers to concrete cases. >> if i may. i tend to agree with where i think -- winkler. that's going to happen. their slr in that regard. there's a movement to try to make the first amendment test applicable to the second. the freedom of assembly and speech and freedom to access to informat

art contextualism in thesense that scalia is . >> i would divide the courts, supreme court work and the lower court work into two categories. more political science work on this but the supreme court is doing two things. none of the things that doing is it serving a function as a unifier and a clarifier of law on issues that are not, they're not making it to the front of the new york times. there was a case yesterday where what was justice kagan's line? this will be of interest only to appellate judges. >> and maybe not even to them . >> so on those cases in statutory cases, you do see textualism carrying the day so i'm thinking of those cases involving whether a fish is a tangible object. this was something called the eight, the guide through grouper overboard to hide the fact hewas catching fish he wasn't allowed to catch. there was a law that said you couldn't destroy any document, record or object . here you had maybe the only time ginsberg versus kagan and are both engaged in this analysis where ginsberg is quoting hawkeye pierce from and kagan is quoting doctor seuss. none of

that her father the courts each day. and to acknowledge the incredible work and to hear the views of ways we can improve immigration process i specifically want to hear the argument for or against reforming and restructuring the court system i believe that will help me and other members of the congress have a better understanding if we do legislate state changes under this current process. now i will recognize the ranking member. >> and without due process clause no person should be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. this language date the lineage to the magna carta. please note the due process clause extends these critical protection to a person not to a citizen. in the supreme court has consistently held that the protection extends to all persons in the united states the court said that expressly that aliens even those whose presence is unlawful have long been recognized to guarantee due process by the fifth and 14h amendment. prior immigration courts were established for noncitizen to fac

supreme court. she did not do the arguing but she took it to the connecticut supreme court. she was later associated with the defense of the black panthers. she felt very strong about women's rights and access to contraception. >> our last in the cast of characters, is thomas emerson. >> he argued the case for the griswold legal team before the supreme court. he took over from one of the original engineers when professor harper fell sick. >> you were talking before the program started about the yale connection. so many aspects intersect with with yale. is it a coincidence? >> yale has been a preeminent law school for a great deal of time and probably, you could say known at this time for being unafraid. it did controversial things and this was indeed controversial. you have griswold married to someone from yale. you have dr. buxton on the faculty of yell, emerson on the faculty of yell. she had family who went to yale, so quite a few links. >> also, apparently estelle griswold would have a mean mart

to be sure, lower courts during the interim were wary of rejecting this court date that a particular statute was jurisdictional he benefit seemed to be the court when it prided itself didn't feel obligated to go through the steps of deciding whether a standard for overruling of prior precedent had been established. it simply said we used the wrong shorthand. where not wrong as to the substance and we will go from there . >> mister stewart, do you believe there is a constitutional minimum so that given a small business using the internet may have greater burdens then amazon and therefore they have a constitutional claim under your position or under your position, can states impose the burden on any micro business, i guess the term that is being used. >> our view as to the answer that is most consistent with this quote courts commerce clause jurisprudence is there is no constitutional minimum. that if you have an out-of-state retailer is deliberately selling a particular is a go good within the state, shipping the good into the state or delivering to the customer a transfer of title, t

to be sure, lower courts during the interim were wary of rejecting this court's statement that a particular statement was jurisdictional even if it seemed to be on thinking. the court didn't feel obligated to go through the steps of decided whether the standard for overruling had been established. it simply said we used the wrong shorthand, we were not wrong as to the substance will go from there. >> do you believe there is a minimum so that a small business using it may have greater burdens than amazon and for they have a claim under your position or any micro business if you have an out-of-state retailer who is selling a particular physical good within the state that is a sufficient basis for subjecting that retailer to the tax collection obligation in the same way that if that single good turned out to be defective the state could be subject, i'm sorry the retailer could be subject to regulatory burdens enforced by the state and could be pulled into court. >> is about the very kind of question that congress is equipped to deal with, establishing the minimum. >> certainly the fact that we

that incident never made it to the supreme court, one doesn't know how the court would have come out. here it's clear the president has violated the change to the law enacted in 1965. >> maryland, independent line. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. this argument comes up about the idea the president can put restrictions on travel bans on certain countries. here is the strange part of this argument. when you refer to it as a travel ban, but when you talk about the wars overseas you would never refer to the war as a majority muslim country we're at war with. if there's no security issue with this, you're not worried about national security, are you basically saying that you're at war with a country, say a majority muslim country, and forget about the majority muslim ban. if you're at war with a car can't you consider limiting to travel to the country you're at war with? thank you. i'll take the comments off air. >> to the extent we are engaged in armed conflict, we are really not at war with those countries. we are in a state of armed conflict with the terrorist groups that are thre

sat on the court. her teachers to recognize to try to get her a supreme court clerkship but there was not a supreme court justice who would take a woman into his chambers nor would the court repealed justice's taking her into their chambers, no women, she wound up as a district court clerk and ultimately started her real career as an entry-level professor at rutgers law school. her break point came from when her women students asked her to teach a course in women and the law. he went to the library, better walk it off and she found these laws about treating women badly and started taking cases from the new jersey aclu. within months she was offered a job on the faculty at columbia which figured out they have no women on their faculty. and the american, the national american civil liberties union started its women's rights project and they invited her to when it for nine years. nine years, she had six cases that she argued and won that she did a brief but didn't get to argue because the lawyer wouldn't

that incident never made it to the supreme court. one doesn't know how the court came out. here it's clear that the president violated the law. >> and from maryland independent line. matt, hello. >> hi, thanks for taking my call. this argument comes up every once in a while about the idea that president can put restriction and travel ban on certain countries. here's the strange part of this argument. when you refer to it as a travel ban, you are referring to a muslim. but when you talk about the wars oefrpz you would never refer to it asthma majority muslim country we are at work with. so what i'm asking you, if there is no national security, are you basically saying you are at war with a country, say majority muslim country, and forget about the majority muslim ban, are you saying that if you are at war with a country you can't consider limiting travel to the country you are at war with? >> so what's interesting is that to the extent that we are engaged in armed conflict in certain of the countries fektded by the travel ban, we are not really at war with those countries. w

we have courts of law. so i hope that answers the question. >> i -- it's fun any -- you read different things about the west and what the west -- i mean the frontier west. the west approach to regulation in the 19th century. on the one hand i think -- i think popular conception, mine included, was shoot out in the okay core rail and everything. and apparently. in some municipalities, apparently, the reality was quite different than if you came to town you were expected to go and read some accounts. you were expected to go to the sheriff's office and drop off the grun before you went drinking in order to cut down on that kind of violence. but, as far as vigilantes go, i think -- i'm sure that probably some of it was a function of spontaneous order and the lack of any other kind of law enforcement that can be dependented upon. >> okay. this question asks -- it mentions the sort of war on drugs controversy going on. the crack down on drugs and the fact has it been working and the opioid crisis and if you want

, stormy daniels is in court. i want to bring in charlie sykes, an msnbc contributor hope tapes. [ laughter ] >> look, sean hannity had no legal obligation to disclose his relationship with michael cohen, but if there is anything remaining of journalistic ethics at fox news, he certainly needed to disclose that fact when he was going on and on and on talking about michael cohen, the raid on michael cohen and this entire, you know, legal proceeding here. in your previous discussion, are there any standards any longer? we've talked a lot about being in a post-factual political world. you kind of wonder whether over there you are in a post-ethical political world as well. >> eric deggins makes a point there are rules for people like me who are journalists and there should be some rules, accepted standards for people who are pundits. and you are one. but sean hannity walks a slightly different rope. he's on -- he may be on the other side of even those standards that apply to normal pundits. but i guess a lot of people

and was the basis of a three district court. it was not the majority of it but this court could not have reached this decision if it had not been in the case. >> i don't understand what you want to have take place. >> you think after the cases that be time to adopt a new map to be used in the 2018 election? >> the short answer is that that's an issue for the district court to decide. it's not something we've conceded. the case could get back down to the district court for some time a type of relief. they could say there's not enough time and allow the election to take place. it might look for an interim solution. >> it was ordered by this court indicated there might be time is can upset expectations. people are planning campaigns. a suggesting it would be disruptive of the current election in districting for this court to reman and consider whether it should be changed at this late date? >> it would perpetuate the uncertainty that's been hanging over marilyn's -- all along. think they have to take a position on the timing questi

international security and cooperation and to serve as the clerk justice of the united states a pre-court will probably mention briefly prior to his current position serving as chief counsel with the senate foreign relations committee and the house intelligence committee and in the white house associate counsel to the president in the justice department assistant attorney general and other physicians in the justice department including the office of legal policy where he worked on the confirmation of chief justice roberts and justice alito into my left carey is chief counsel and director of the judicial crisis network in that capacity she has testified before congress unconstitutional issues regularly appears on television including msnbc, fox, cnn, c-span and abc this week written and spoken on a wide range of judicial issues with constitutional limit on government as a part of judicial selection she readily argues supreme court cases she was zero's ex- fellow at the law center previously a locker to justice thomas and the d.c. court of appeals graduated harvard law school from duke univ

the supreme court historical society hosted this event in the supreme court chamber. >> so we have an array of three marshall clerks, four marshall clerks with myself, i was there from '74 to' 75, four d.c. circuit clerks, and all of us, like virtually all of our other alumni of justice marshall's chambers were very much affected in our careers and in our lives by the experience of having been in his chambers and in close contact with him for a year. so we're going to reminisce a little bit if that's okay. i'm not sure there will be more to it than that for you, but we hope that is of some interest. and so i'm going to start with you unless you want to pass. >> okay. >> you didn't pass in class, did you? >> never. >> good. so why don't you tell us about how the clerkship affected your career. >> starting with the big one. how it affected my career. you know, i think clerking on this court affects everybody's career who does it. i mean, it's probably more than is justified. it's something that does, you know, you put it on your resume and all of a sudden, doors open. sometimes justifia