the united states supreme court and one court system, the federal court system. lawyers and litigants assume it has all of the answers. the role of state constitutional law has been embarrassing under appreciated. according to one poll more than half of americans did not even know their state had a constitution. it's very long, by the way. i won't tell you how recently but it was last night. few of the nations 200 accredited law schools even offer constitutional law and substantial of those are taught by sutton. judge sutton would like to direct this imbalance. the latest tells four stories about four areas of constitutional law. that digsal accounts of these constitutional issues ignore half the story. the important and positive role that state courts have played in the law's development. judge sutton's book is not nothing if not timely. americans are deeply divided over the proper role in our constitutional democracy. today we will hear a federal judge argue that a renewed focus on state constitutional law might be a solution for some of what divides us. it ben

of court vision of court-packing lay with lincoln's version of court-packing? friday either similar or completely different? dr. huebner: great question. the story, in the 1930's is that franklin roosevelt is frustrated with the supreme court because there is an economic crisis, the worst in the nation's history. congress and roosevelt are on the same page, passing all of in a new deal legislation 1933, 1934, much of it comes to the supreme court in 1935 and 1936. the supreme court is much more conservative and made up of justices appointed by previous presidents who are not in empathy with roosevelt's new deal. most of these measures are struck down. so many have this problem of the mind that bear in roosevelt is reelected in a an opponent who statet even when his own of kansas. 60 something percent popular vote for franklin roosevelt. so the public and the president and the congress are all on one side. and they are trying to accomplish something in order to get out of this crisis. and the supreme court is standing in the way of that. roosevelt figures, look,

court? hon. rao: it is not. >> then it is the obligation to follow the precedent established by the supreme court of the united states. hon. rao: and i would do so. i read that you you never judgmentingle case for or final decision, is that correct? hon. rao: my experience is focused on government service and academia. us are members of the d.c. bar and courts of appeals. every time i have argued a case before a court of appeals, i have looked at judges who have tried cases that involve litigation reports, because often times, the whole case revolves around what might've happened in the trial before. practice has been in the records correct? yes or no? i have worked in federal courts in my various government position, and my private practice was in there. >> you've tried cases in federal court? hon. rao: i have not. >> have you tried cases in the state courts? hon. rao: my primary experience has been as a scholar, and working for this committee and for the executive branch. the executive bra

court., ultimately. but as the passage from the district court -- i read what the court says. there is an instruction from the secretary to enforcement officers of that criteria to take into account. so, while-well there is nothing in the ina that specifically precludes the exercise of discretion in a particular case, the question is, whether the secretary can say, for very large numbers of people on a categorical basis, the different criteria are going to apply. and, we think that the answer is no, but it doesn't matter whether the court agrees with that. the question is, a, whether it is reviewable. and b, assuming that it is reviewable, the secretary had a minimum, a reason to think that there was substantial, legal question. and the secretary said, she would be assuming that the supreme court would ultimately to say, that daca was permitted by the ina. she would not do it. but she thinks that it is of questionable legality. at minimum. and that, this is the sort of thing that congress sh

court to the supreme court. they say he is a republican. he is very conservative. if you want to go with a southern conservative nominee, he is your man. nixon says that sounds great, we will nominate him. there are two problems with the carswell nomination. the first is that haynesworth did have a couple of votes that were hostile to civil rights. it was no indication that haynesworth was racist or that he was personally hostile towards african-americans in any respect. he would stay on the circuit court after his defeat. for several years, he was well-liked liked by both parties. you might have liked his votes or disliked his votes, but he was not personally problematic. carswell, before entering the judiciary had run for public office in georgia. it doesn't appear as if the nixon people pick this up. state8, running for legislature in georgia, he delivered a speech saying he was in favor of segregation forever. if haynesworth is unacceptable because of the civil rights positions, carswell will be worse. nixon

up to the supreme court. the constitutional rights of people throughout the nation are being flicked on and off like a light switch as stays are granted, stays are dissolved, stays are reimposed. structurally this is not the way a legal system is supposed to work and to the extent that we are now seeing these nationwide orders being regularized, we're forcing the supreme court to deal with critical constitutional issues in these emergency postures that are not well suited to them and that gin up unnecessary public debate and public controversy rather than playing more of a tempering and a cooling function. i think jordan made a lot of interesting points. the historical function of the bill of peace is to allow a proceeding to settle an issue, to bring peace to an issue al w allowing nationwide defendant oriented injunctions doesn't do that because if the government wins, the issue isn't deemed settled. there is no peace. right holders can continue to bring case after case after case until eventually someone s

work on the supreme court? i won't ask you which job you like better. [laughter] >> but i will answer that. [laughter] i have often describe the difference between the three courts as follows. barring the words of one of my former colleagues, district court life is what controls chaos. there is a fast-moving pace every single moment of every single day and there are timeless differences running and jumping through your door and there are hearings and trials and procedures of all kinds in the courtroom and what you can expect in the district court is one day will never look like the preceding day and no two days are ever identical. the amount of information you absorb is a judge is one given day is so large that at the end of my first year as a district court judge i told the friends that i finally understood why the brain is a muscle. [laughter] mine had expanded so far from all the knowledge i was stuffing into that it was a good thing it was a muscle and could stretch. [laughter] it is not only very in the ma

this court's decision in baji has prompted the lower courts to try to articulate factors and some courts use some factors, other courts use others, in an appropriate case with full briefing. and this court can and should decide that important question. that thecase consists petitioner like every other , american, has the rights to raise the excessive fines defense and that the indiana courts can then assess the situation. >> but you're asking us to buy a pig in a poke. you're saying incorporate this, but we don't even know whether it means we're gonna decide whether $10,000 is enough, or or $20,000, if we're simply going to say something along the lines of harmlin, which is it's not just that it's whatever so many grams, it's the third offense. so that is -- protection against that is fundamental to a civilized society or whatever the standard is that we've been applying. you say, don't worry about what it means, just incorporate it and figure it out later on? wesley hottot: your honor, i'm not saying don't worry about it. i think this is a pressing question. and an appropriate case, i t

courts of appeals can't. can a court of appeals actually make a law invalid? well, only within its own appellate jurisdiction. if the ninth circuit says a statute is invalid it's not invalid in the d.c. circuit. it seems to me that fact shows what's really going on here is courts are interpreting the substantive primary law, not changing the law. the last thing i'll say to connect this to the texas case is if i'm reading the texas case correctly this question, whether the -- whether severeens as it said it a remedy comes up in the texas case i think as it came up in nfib because from -- from what i can tell the parties -- there too have shown only they are subject to the individual patent, not that they are actually subject to all of the other parts that they want the court to say is inseverable. if that's right, if i read the case correctly, that means that the court i think should not address that issue because the combination of standing and the way i think severe ability operates. whether severability operates lake that is a matter of some current controve

courts as we upheld it. and the question is, how? will they limited to this, these kinds of very restrictive fact, or will they open the door wide to lots more decisions , tracking down gun regulations and shooting gun regulations with great hostility, or at least suspicion, and in this case, the cases in which the court held that there is a constitutional right to personal, private ownership of a gun in your home, for your own self defense, the justice wrote that opinion and i was told that as a condition of his support, they had to insert a whole section of opinion, which is considered the most important section of the opinion, at least so far, saying that the local governments can have reasonable rules, regulating gun ownership and gun possession. so that was kennedy's view, very clearly, and presumably, they do not take a major gun case for almost 10 years, because the conservatives were pretty sure that kennedy would not be with them on most reasonable gun restrictions. well, he's retired now, replaced

case in federal court or state court, or a court of appeals? do you understand why some can be concerned about that? >> yes, senator, i certainly understand that concern. you know, there are a number of judges you know on the court of appeals who have had a similar background to mine that has combined academia and government especially, especially for the court of appeals where there are more purely legal issues that arise in those cases. and you know, the experience i've had is i think ver germane to the special piezed docket of the d.c. court. >> when i argued before cortes of appeals any may be legal issues but resulted from a trial. >> yes, of course. >> as those came up. and you assumed that the judges the no matter who appointed them, that certainly those of us who are arguing the case before them and assumed that they had some idea what the courtroom was like. now, you made it your mission to deregulate government. i see it as making it harder for government agencies to use their authority to protect our healthy, our safety and environme

the circuit court level. so we appealed to the supreme court. does many cases a year the supreme court take? not many. >> you tell me. mary beth: they take about 80 cases out of 10,000. john: less than 1%. mary beth: but they thought this was an important case. because it had to do with there speech rights and had only been one case. west virginia versus barnett, in 1943. that ruled that students could not be forced to say the pledge of allegiance in public schools. john: by the way, they determined that case in 1943 in the middle of a war. they stood up for a student's right not to say the pledge of allegiance. that was a very strong case. in our case, the judges also split, but it was a 7-2 split and we won. it was a resounding victory for student rights. it was the first time the court said students in public schools are persons under the constitution and are endowed with first amendment rights. so, that has been the rule now for almost exactly 50 years, and it has really empowered student voices. in our c

court. >> good evening, welcome to c- span lawn where cases come tonight's case is tinkered versus des moines independent community school district. in his 1969 case, the worn court in a 7-2 decision ruled that students 1st amendment rights to free speech are still protected even when they are at school. for the next 90 minutes, we will learn more about the history of this case, and its significance in our society today, in a year where there are lots of students raising their opinion on issues around the country. let me introduce our guest at the table. mary beth tinker is one of the namesakes in the case, she and her brother were students in 1969 when this case came to the court. and she will be here to share her personal experience, and her work as an adult, now, to promote student free speech student freedom, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> eric jaffe is the chairman of the federal society free speech and election law passed x group. he's been involved in more than 100 cases b

court.gov. applications for the '20-'21 class will be due in november. first, we have a great feature this afternoon. we will be joined by the 111th justice of the supreme court of the united states, the honorable sonia sotomayor who has served since 2009. six years ago, justice sotomayor published her best-selling autobiography "my beloved world." she has released two volumes for middle school and elementary school readers. together these books have been inspiring for people of all ages. we are foot gnat to have two wonderful moderators for today's conversation, chief judge robert a.katzman. he is also the chairman of the supreme court fellows commission. professor eloise pasicof is a scholar. she's a member of theed ademic advisory board for our fellows board program. she served as a law clerk early in her career to highly regarded, judge sotomayor and judge katzman. please join me in welcoming justice sotomayor, chief judge katzman. [ applause ] >> carla, this room is so beautiful. it's j

court of appeals for the district of columbia in 1986 and 1987. she then served as a clerk to justice thurgood marshall during the 1987 term. it doesn't stop there. she worked as a lawyer and private practice in the department of justice before returning to harvard law in 1999, a scant four years later she was appointed the 11th, only the 11th game of the harvard law -- dean of the harvard law school. president obama nominated her as the 45th solicitor general of the united states. she was confirmed in that position on march 19, 2009. the following year, president obama nominated her as an associate justice of the supreme court on may 10, 2010, and she assumed her present role on august 7, 2010. please join me in giving a warm welcome to our very busy and very generous host, justice elena kagan. [applause] justice kagan: well, thank you so much. thank you for all the historical society does for the court and for the country. your programs really educate all of us in the history of the court, in the history of american law, and it's a really terrif

looking to the more recent period, dws up in court justices, nearly 40 appellate court judges, and an extremely muscular agenda on regulatory reform. these are some of the consequential aspects of the former white house counsel's legacy. i can't recall, in my professional life at least, a white house counsel who is as directly and intensely engaged on the enterprise of judicial selection and confirmation. i certainly cannot recall a process as bold and entrepreneurial. an unprecedented number of useful nominees who will serve for two decades, a generation or more. that began on the heels of the inauguration of 2017, and that's was unrelenting in turning out nominees quickly. to such don mcgahn consequential and flexion point in our history? that don mcgahn has been committed to an agenda of limited constitutional government for a very long time. he got involved in the federalist society early on in law school. me ast recently showed certificate we gave him in 1993 for his service as president of his law school federal society chapter. why didn't i get one of those? [laughter] mcgahn a

will the court finally, should the court go there, is its constitutional integrity at risk? this is something the court has to weigh. i think it will turn ultimately on two of the chief justices who are not here, chief justice roberts who did not opine about this issue and part of it is they will take the easy case and support this position and the other part of me hopes they repair the political system here but it will come at some political cost to the court. what would i do if i were on the court? stay tuned. it's hard to know. i ain't going on the courts but stay tuned for what others are going to do. i can see even if were asked by some of the justices what to do, i can see a fair case to be made on both sides. i have to end bid remembering harry truman's comment about he always wanted to have a one-armed economist because all of the economists he consulted said on one hand this, on the other hand this. i'm sorry on this issue i'm a two-armed economist, not a one-armed economist. there are strong arguments that cut both ways and neither side is frivolous, asking for pro

it actually went from the district court to the appellate court before it came up to the supreme courtreme court. >> the honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. >> i was very much aware of justice ginsburg's history with respect to gender, excluding women from an institution, i was very much aware of that. and i was trying to fashion an argument that would penetrate that. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, educators are virtually united that many young men and young women significantly benefit from a single sex education. >> the curiosity is you're defending single-sex education when virginia abandoned single-sex education in all schools but one. >> there are a number of women's only schools in virginia that chose themselves to go to co-education because of demands that occurred -- >> demands from whom? >> the trends that were away from single-sex education. >> i was dealing with a very worthy and formidable force at the other side of that bench. >> to clarify, you are defending vmi for all males and no public pr

once those cases are heard by federal courts, starting in district courts, appellate courts, the solicitor generals office will file on behalf of the united states. it will be a parties brief. the lawyers will argue those cases. if and when the case goes to supreme court, solicitor general will argue the case. solicitors generals of both parties invariably defend executive power. interactstor general with the office of legal counsel, the constitutional think tank which issues opinions about executive power. the department has issued an opinion blessing the president's exercise of authority. senate democrats have asked for a copy of that opinion. they are not typically public. the solicitor general would rely on that opinion in the course of writing his or her brief. host: will the newly appointed general -- newly appointed attorney general william barr have a role in this? guest: a broad, supervisory role. if he directs the solicitor general to take a position, he would have to do that. he generally would leave it up to the solicitor general. this is a morning where have to issue congratul

, the appellate courts.already done it several times. daca, the travel ban, a lawsuit over climate change, just to name a few. today the supreme court gave the trump administration what they want, agreeing to leapfrog the appeals courts and adds a case about citizen to the next census next year. the doj argued they needed this ex- expedited review. the census bureau said they can actually push that back to september. now, opponents of this decision say the citizenship question could make both undocumented and legal immigrants less likely to respond to the census, which could reduce democratic representation and affect the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending. and the plaintiffs in this case won in district court last month. the judge blocked the administration from adding the question. blocked the administration from adding the question saying wilbur ross cherry picked facts and deceived congress in his efforts to change the census. now, the administration will get a chance to

the dc court of appeals. this was from 2001-2003. he served as deputy assistant attorney general at the u.s. department of justice. he worked on issues involving foreign policy, national security, and separation of powers. to his right is professor [ inaudible ]. we call him deep. he is a professor who teaches constitutional law and immigration law at santa clara university. he has been there since 2007. he co-authored the recent book regarding immigration and federalism. he has also written extensively on the relationship between the second amendment and immigrants. he was a visiting professor at stanford law school and also at nyu. before doing that he was a litigation associate under two individuals in los angeles. he worked for the honorable jack weiner of the u.s. court of appeals in new orleans. to his right is professor eastman. he is the professor of law and community service at chapman university public school of law and was a dana from 2007 to january 2010. he stepped down to pursue a date with cali

they keep appealing rulings they don't like from district court bypassing the appellate courts.hey did with d.a.c.a., a travel ban, a lawsuit over climate change to name a few and today they gave the trump administration what they want a green to leap frog the appeals court citizenship to the next census. they argued they needed this expedited review. the census bureau itself says they could push it back to september. opponents of the decision say the citizenship question could make undocumented andile eagle in federal spending. and the plaintiffs in this case won in district court last month. the judge blocked administration from adding the question saying that commerce secretary wilber ross cherry picked facts but administration will get a chance to dismiss the defeat in front of the supreme court where thanks to the justices appointed by president trump, they have a conservative majority. it's a fascinating and enraging case. we've actually done two episodes with one of the aclu lawyers working on it on why is this happening, the podcast. check them out where you get your pod

to frame it up, when president trump became president, the supreme court -- there were supreme court vacancies in 17 other vacancies. mitch mcconnell decided not to move nominees, which was consistent with historical president in certain ways. a number of vacancies occurred. he was in no rush to fill them. we had a little bit of an advantage. when i left the white house, which wasn't that long ago, but i'm sure it feels longer in the modern age, the president has appointed two supreme court justices, 30 courts of appeals justices, 53 district judges, five military judges, and two tax court judges. that is 70 article three nominees -- 73 article -- 70 article three nominees that died last year. the not died, but they were not acted on. so you look at the vacancies, we filled them and then some. the president can be very proud. we announced our judges in waves. we had a mini pr strategy, but we didn't just randomly throw people to the senate. we did them in a certain order, thought about the order we would nominate them. there was a lot of thought put into what circuits to tackle first

two tax court judges. for you tax court lawyers out there, something for you. -- died in the senate last year. and died is not really the right word. the senate adjourns and you have to renominate them so they are not dead. they were not acted on. when you start with the young precedent number of vacancies that were inherited, we filled them and then some. it was really a success story that the president can be very proud of. we announced our judges in waves. we have kind of a mini pr strategy. we did not randomly throw people over to the senate. we had a formal press release. we thought about how we were -- in the owner of how we would nominate them. there was a lot of thought put in as to what circuits to tackle first and the composition of those circuits. which senators would be easier to deal with, which will be harder to deal with. i will not give away all the tricks. somebody may be watching. don't want to be team to know how to do it. hadnew york times magazine this great line about our waves. they

looking to the more recent times, two supreme court 40 appellaterly court judges and extremely muscular agenda on regulatory reform. these are some of the consequential aspects of former white house counsel don mcgann's legacy. i can't recall in my professional life, at least, a white house counsel who was as directly and intensely engaged on the enterprise of judicial selection and confirmation. and i certainly cannot recall a process as bold and entrepreneurial. of usefulted number nominees who will serve for two decades, a generation or more. a pipeline that began just on the heels of the inauguration of 2017 and that was unrelenting in churning out nominees quickly. mcgann to such a consequential inflection point in our history? first and foremost, i know that don mcgann has been committed to an agenda of a limited constitutional government for a very long time. in theinvolved federalist society early on in law school. in fact, he just recently showed ina certificate we gave him 1993 for his service as president of his law school federalist society chapter. why did i not get one of

most supreme court nominees were placed on the court even without a hearing. the politicization of the judiciary blaming one group is real, and after 2013, everything changed. now, what did we do? we had gorsuch, we couldn't get 60 votes. we changed the rule for the supreme court. i think you're on the pbs interview that i was on. what's going to happen? judges will be more idealogical because you don't have to reach across the aisle to get anybody's input, and it's going to have an effect over time on the judiciary that i very much regret. everything i said in 2013 has come true. as to the blue slip, the idea that the blue slip was a veto is not accurate. 17 of the last 19 chairmen did not allow senators to have a veto of a presidential pick. it was a tradition where you considered the input. it was seldom deviated from. if you couldn't find agreement where you had two democrats senators and a republican president, you tried to get consensus. so what i would say to senator whitehouse about rhode island, and about any other judge, none of us have input. not th

will say we don't see the emergency what the supreme court will decide nobody can tell because there are two new justices and some just as may say look we can't second guess a presidential declaration of emergency other judges will say no we have to look to see whether this is a circumvention of the constitutional provision that spending bills start in the house of representatives must be voted on by congress i don't think it's an emergency of congress says to the president no that's part of their constitutional authority that's part of our system of checks and balances if the supreme court let's say decides in trump's favor the next president could declare climate change and national emergency health meshal emergency right he and presidents have you know look this all started with thomas jefferson when he bought louisiana the louisiana purchase without authorization from congress and a lot of people said my god the president has exceeded his authority lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus franklin delano roosevelt one hundred ten thousand innocent japanese americans in detenti

split between the two circuit courts, the supreme court agreed to hear the case, and at the supreme court, as he mentioned, we won 7-2. our goal for our goal for the r and we should point out that we welcome our viewers on c-span3, american history tv, is to talk non--- not only about the significance of the case but 50 years later, how and why it is relevant today. opinion,majority justice abe fortis with the following "first amendment rights applied in the school environment are available to teachers and students grade it can hardly be argued either students or teachers should their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. can you explain the significance of that decision? this is the first time the court -- the supreme court had recognized students in the public schools are persons under the law. are endowed with their first amendment rights. with the proviso that they not only disrupt the educational environment, there cannot be a material and substantial disruption of the environment, and they cannotmaterial and subl infringe on the rights of

in lower courts. if it is a place that doesn't seem to fit within the constitutional theory as we understand it then we have to look at the premise and figure out if we made the change in outcome. and so, for us it is justice for the law as it should be. those are very much the stark differences between the three courts and an answer to your unspoken question i have -- >> i do not ask who your favorite colleague was? [laughter] >> that i will not answer. [laughter] but i have announced that if i ever underscore that word ever take senior status i would go back to being a district court judge and it is a lot of fun. [laughter] >> i follow up on the fun part and ask when do you do for fun with the easy important day job and how do you relax and unwind? >> first of all, i love exercise so i do do exercise when i am not injuried and some are self-inflicted but, you know, probably not a smart thing to do. i love exercise. i do love reading so i like reading fiction as opposed to serious books when i can al

supreme court. the case there the court upheld obamacare as constitutional, but made clear the majority of the court made clear it was not constitutional as an exercise of the commerce power in the constitution, so if that was the power upon which the government was going to rely, it would have been unconstitutional. however, the court then said it was constitutional under the taxing power. this is not the income tax found in the amendment, this is actually the taxing power in the original constitution. people forget there is a taxing clause, but the supreme court remembered it just in time for obamacare. upheld obamacare based upon the fact that the individual mandate is essentially a tax because it collects a penalty and run by the irs and the like so it looks like a tax, feels like a tax, people pay money to the government, close enough, it looks like a tax. so they upheld obamacare on that basis. subsequent to that the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017 tax reform bill of last year passed and congres

supreme court addressed free speech cases in world war i. she's the author of the book, "the taming of free speech: america's civil liberties compromise." the supreme court historical society hosted this hour-long event. >> i'm pleased to welcome you to this evening's program, which is the fourth and final lecture in the society's leon silverman lecture series. this year, that series has been focused on world war i and the supreme court. it's been a highly successful series up until now. we expect to finish it this evening in a blaze of glory, so we're looking forward. i want to especially thank justice kagan for hosting us this evening. without the support of the justices of our court, we would be unable to host these events in such surroundings. because the justice has another event after this one, i'm going to give a briefer introduction than she deserves. but she has to make her way to a second legation. justice kagan has an enviable resume. and you will hear a little bit about it now. she received her ab summa cum laude from princeton u

the court said this. the first amendment declares that congress shall make no war restricting the free exercise of religion. up until cantwell the supreme court had interpreted the first amendment as protecting people in the united states from wrongs committed by federal authorities. who was arrested jehovah's witnesses? not the federal authorities? it was the municipal authorities. and a landmark turnaround the supreme court added this sentence. the 14th amendment has rendered the legislatures of the state in connecticut as incompetent as congress to enact such laws. this was a shift that significantly expanded the protection of the first amendment. as an american today you are protected under the first amendment not just by wrongs committed by federal authorities but wrongs committed by state and municipal authorities. who won that right for you? jehovah's witnesses. just two weeks after this unanimous decision the supreme court handed down the crushing defeat that we have talked about this morning. you

this what do you think the court everyone is saying now the chief justice will be the new kennedy and he's going to divide between four and four and he'll be the fifth and spending cases do you expect that. well i knew john roberts when he was a student at harvard law school and i've met him on several occasions sense i have very high regard for him i think he understands that the role of chief justice is different from the role of an associate justice he has to maintain the integrity of the supreme court and i think he will do what he thinks is best for the united states supreme court so i think he will be a fifth vote on some issues i think judge kavanaugh may be a fifth vote on some issues he may surprise some people i think one of the first issues will see is the review of the recent decision regarding restrictions on abortion rights so it'll be interesting chief justice did grant the deciding vote on the stay but that doesn't tell us necessarily how will vote when the case comes if it comes to the supreme court on the merits allen do you see the war as a necessity. well i see bor

we have an emergency stay application that come up to the court and the court gives us a one-pager. know anything on the merits. we know in 2014 louisiana passes this admitting privileges law. it's identical -- louisiana stipulates it's identical to the one that was struck down in whole women's health. >> the texas law that the supreme court said was too much of an infringement on the right to privacy behind roe v. wade. doctors need admitting privileges at a hospital 30 miles away. this was the thing in 2016, the supreme court unequivocally said this helps women not at all and it adds a tremendous burden and so go away. yet, louisiana and the district judge in this louisiana case 112-page findings of facts establishing the same thing. this doesn't help women's health. these doctors have tried desperately to get privileges. they can't get them. clinics are going to close. probably two clinics are going to close. there will be one doctor left -- two doctors left, one clinic in the whole state of louisiana. he says i'm going to enjoin this thing. it can't go into effect. fifth circuit

ultimately when you show up for court, if you don't show up for court, there is a for fy tour process where the person who put the security down will lose that security, if the person doesn't appear in court. >> now, is this national policy or does each state have its own bail system that it works under? >> both. there is a right to bail. both the 8th amendment would suggest that, as well as the judiciary act. so bail has existed in the nation for many hundreds of years. however, in each jurisdiction, the implementation of that bail system occurs in different ways. the ideal system does not rely on money, monetary conditions, in order to determine whether someone is released. there are many other alternatives beyond money. and so the lawyers committee for civil rights under law, and in particular, our concern is with promoting equal justice under law, and in a monetary system, or a cash bail system, the poor and particularly african-americans are disadvantaged, because the bail system becomes a system for determining whether you are having one type of justice, because you have the mon

ate court and eventually to the supreme court. assuming one of these cases makes it to the supreme court, what the court rules would be dispositive in all of these cases. we'll see how it turns out. >> one other question and this ay prevail if want to weigh on it. justice alito on, a designated union as the employee's representative substantially restriggets the rights of individual employees and he said that the idea of public sector unionization and agency fees would astound those who framed the bill of rights. that is pretty strong rights that garnered five votes. do you think that subsequent litigation -- the decision might impact exclusive bargaining rights more generally? >> my answer is that i hope so and we'll soon find out. there are cases pending including at the supreme court. starting about the 2,000's the united states came up with the idea who unionize individuals who are public employees, medicaid providers who provide home base care and child care services in their home and get state subsidies. and what the unions

circuit court. committeelot in this that have a president is trying to push through lots of conservative judges. i actually don't see much conservatism in those judges. what i see is judges who are predictably likely to rule for specific big special interests. you see the hands of those special interests in the process of selection. ,e like to know more about it but the federal society does not disclose its donors clearly. do know from the white house that the white house has said it in sourced the federalist society to make their selection of the last supreme court nominee. we then see a confirmation process that is just rotten with dark money. one donor, nearly $18 million. we do not know who that donor is. we see the same groups turning up in front of the circuit court, the supreme court as an icky. -- as an amicae. it is probably the worst police to form of influence seeking in our government. but what i see is an instinct to protect the rule of dark money, because dark money is the for the spam

, ultimately the supreme court.re. you are guilty, yourself, of putting dissidents behind bars. you're part of a system. and also, if you tell me, oh, i was involved with elections. the supreme court declared that the election of 2018, president maduro‘s re—election, the court was perfectly happy to accept that result when every international observer said that the vote was rigged, that it was completely illegitimate and unacceptable. so even in your role supervising elections, time and again, you were avoiding all responsibility to tell the truth. are you saying to me that maduro‘s re—election in 2018 was legitimate or illegitimate? was that election free and fair or was it rigged? have you discussed with the us authorities — because of course now you're now living in florida, in exile — have you discussed with them giving evidence and sworn statements about what you describe as the systematic corruption at the top of the regime? you've talked about the chiefjustice mr moreno, you've talked about the president and

supreme court. the event is hosted by the heritage foundation. >> good evening i am elizabeth slattery and welcome to the heritage foundation. thank you for coming to the supreme trivia event. you can hear the teams out there that will be coming out in just a minute. we have two teams tonight. they are top supreme court litigators that are ready to go head-to-head in rounds of trivia regarding history, scandal, and more. before we introduce the teams i would like to introduce my cohost sheldon gilbert. thank you for being here. >> thank you. and welcome to basically super bowl for law nerds. we will kick things off by introducing the teams. it's my privilege to introduce team jefferson. the heckling has already started., and out team jefferson. we will start with lisa blatt. lisa heads-up appellate and supreme court practice. somebody recently said that sometimes a superstar is just a superstar. lisa is a superstar among superstars. she has argued my cases at the supreme court then any other woman a

to the supreme court and said, look, let this case leapfrog over the appeals courts.e it now. because we've got to get these census forms printed. we have to start printing them in june and you're the only one who can answer this questions. a short time ago the supreme court said it will do that, it will hear this case on a fast track in the second week of april. now, the trump administration was defending this saying questions about citizenship or ore jor or origin have been on every census sense 2000 and it's asked personal demographic questions, like relationship status, race and so on. and that this would not suppress the count. so, anyway, the supreme court is going to take up this very hot button question on a fast track hearing it in april. ali. >> pete, i don't know how you do it. i live in amazement. a piece of news comes out, pete appears on tv and gives you the clearest jigs of what happened. you're a human encyclopedia. >> they let me do my homework. >> we appreciate it. pete, thank you. >>> coming up next, i'm going to dig into where president trump is ge