the janus case came out as we had expected. but justice kagan nailed it in her dissent when she said her colleagues were overthrowing a decision entranced in this nations law and economic life for more than 40 years. as a result, prevents the american people from making important choices about workplace governments. it was there were it's not mine which she said the majority was weapon icing the first amendment, and amendment perverting the amendment that is intended to securing political freedom necessary for democracy. not an amendment intended to equate money to speech as senator whitehouse has said. let me just ended my last minute about what i started with. the same day that janice was decided, 2400 faculty at oregon state university joined and right now, we are at our largest numbers ever, ever. and we have been preparing for this for quite a while. what it has done for us is it has change the nature of our union from one where the unions saw that they outsource their power to where the elected leaders to wear members see

thank you very much for being here. >> it's great to be here. >> i want to start with the janus decision. >> sure. >> ...because the ruling of the court was that, in the case of public-employee unions, the collective-bargaining function is essentially inextricably intertwined from political activity. so if you're a public employee, you are compelled to pay the union a fee, which is called an agency fee, whether you're a union member or not. the labor unions may represent individuals in ways that are inconsistent with individuals' personal views. so they should not be compelled to pay for speech they disagree with. tell us why you disagree with that rationale. >> so, the rationale is, frankly, i'm going to use justice kagan's words in her blistering, scathing dissent, where she said, for no apparent reason, the supreme court has overturned 41 years of precedent that had been affirmed six times, where they ignored the 10th amendment and states' rights to govern labor relations as states saw fit, all because they wanted to weaponize the first amendment on behalf of moneyed interest, like in

the janus cases very much in that tradition. it began with a highly unusual invitation by one of the five republican justices on the supreme court to challenge this aspect of a decision that was what was in there confirmation guides they would call a binding precedent. we need to follow this and we must follow it. of course they got on the court and smashed precedent left right and center. we are getting a little tired of seeing that. this then went on with full litigation with full parties backed by big republican special interest bringing cases they asked to lose so they could move rapidly through the litigation process to the destination at the supreme court where they believed five welcoming justices awaited them for the promised outcome. of course the death of justice scalia messed with that and that's a tie of four, it took him a zero time for those same big republican dark money interest to get the litigation back up and come racing back to the court with new plaintiffs with equally questionable standings. the court overl

to say's what i want about janus. role.ake on a greater what do you take about the will to revisit the decisions that are treated by bedrocks of civil liberties, the right to criminal defendants, and things like that well, we have roe v wade as category. really dependents. is it working? legal reliance? have people structured their whatesses and lives around are the rules that the court established? i think chief justice roberts is making waves until it is necessary. overturnike them to with thomas on certain things in that regard. quotedn't worry about the s.quote super duper precedent maybe we'll see. i interrupted you. it is about more than that. the point here is congress was the state to regulate gambling. area of law the couldn't had not seen, they said do that. the two others didn't say you can, they said you could have statue.ted the healthy thing. the only way is to -- sure. yeah. yeah. congress said that states cannot gambling, sports gambling. repeal jersey wanted to it's restrictions and impose the marketi

congratulations on the janus victory.risky given power of public employee unions for governor as yourself to take on ask me, why did you do it? >> well, it's one of the primary reasons i decided to run for governor. government union power has been disrupting our state government and hurting our taxpayers for decades. the system had to change and i fundamentally believe that the forced dues collection from state employees who did not wish to join the union and did not support political activity, it was unconstitutional and that's why one of the first actions i took when i became governor in early 2015 was to issue executive order to stop the collection of the dues and i also proactively sued ask me to start the litigation process. paul: okay, now that you won in court, what's the impact going to be in your state, what happens next? >> well, we have a immediately stopped collecting the dues for 7,000 state employees who did not choose to join the union. so those dues are no longer collected and the typical state employee is

during the janus case, he did not ask any questions at all. he can be sometimes a fairly active questioner, sometimes relatively quiet. but i think on that quieter than scalia. the one thing that justice gorsuch seems to do is he will really press a point in the way that some of his colleagues don't. and he could be trying to make the point with the lawyer, trying to get the lawyer to concede something. and i'm thinking here about colloquy he had with the deputy solicitor general in the cell phone privacy case, trying to get, trying to press the point that carpenter, the criminal defendant can, had a property interest in the cell phone records that his service provider had. and if you've ever seen michael dreeben argue, you know that he is incredibly well prepared, and there was no way that justice gorsuch was going to get michael dreeben to back down. but the oh thing that could be going on -- the other thing that could be going on, he had some unique views on the law. and i've heard justice kagan talk about this when she was the junior justi

. >> janus alone is a big one. this is a huge victory.bstance subsequently for the first amendment but it's a huge defeat for a lot of the democrat interest groups because they've used this money that they were able to coerced from people in politics. i think like wise the first amendment case in pregnancy centers in california not compel today give out information. the travel ban, i think the travel ban is separate category. anyone but president trump that wouldn't have been an issue. what's interesting about this with kennedy, normally he's known to be the fifth guy voting with the liberals on a case. 19-5-4 decisions and none of this -- paul: any other cases that you cite this year? >> i think the carpenter decision which came out last week where justice roberts sided with liberals in expanding basically fourth amendment to cell phone records and cell phone data and the way he did so was easy and will be extended and fourth amendment has never applied to third-party data, could make it harder for law enforcement and national security t

as we saw this week in the janus decision, settled law is only settled until the justices on the supreme court decide it isn't. and yesterday they reversed 40 years of precedent in a ruling that stretched the meaning of the first amendment to meet their ideological predispositions, their antiunion bias. already there's a case wending it's way through the courts that questions the the constitutionality of the health care law by repealing the coverage requirement, republicans have removed the foundation upon which the chief justice based his ruling to uphold the law. if the change in the law changes justice roberts' mind, which is very likely, and the new jurist is as biased against our health care system as president trump said he or she will be, millions of americans could see their preexisting condition protections wiped out. i say to america, 80%, 90% of you believe we should have preexisting conditions. the nominee of the president is likely to undo them and leave tens of millions of american families helpless. stand up now, america, before this happens. the trump administration decid

last month, he sided with the majority of an owner turning -- case.urning the janus parade for the fourth of july, susan collins that she wants to hear a nominee declare that roe is the settled law of the land. that is what we heard from john roberts and 20 -- if he had his way he would've upheld the highly restrictive anti-abortion law. past republican appointed nominees have proven that these words mean nothing when they get onto the bench. we need a supreme court justice who will uphold roe, a supreme court justice to believes that 2016 wasen's health in rightly decided and adjusted to believes that a woman has a right to safe, legal abortion, and the standards we want to hear from these nominee will be liad out by t -- olaid out by the speakers here today. in recent days, republicans have been trying to lay the groundwork for saying that a nominee does not have to answer questions, invoking the ginsburg rule. the situation was entirely different then. it's as it was not happening against the backdrop of then-president clinton having issued litmus test during the campaign saying in adv

as a side note, mark janus, the public employee who served as the front man for the koch brothers in this landmark janus case, has left his job with the illinois department of health care and family services and now works for the koch brothers. a coincidence? i think not. the administration has emoted or reassigned dozens the senior agency leaders tasked with serving our veterans and protecting our environment. the president has left thousands of critical positions across the government unfilled. he has presented a legislative program as well. the president's fiscal year 2019 budget proposes to freeze federal worker wages, slash their benefits, and undermine their rights in the workplace. and in late may, as mentioned, the president issued three executive orders that weaken long-standing, long-standing and hard-won rights and protections for our federal workers. each of these actions are part of a focused, radical, radical effort to shrink the federal government and limit its ability to help hundreds of millions of people across our country. donald trump and the republican party obvi

, justicerecently gorsuch, justice roberts, and the rest dramatically overturning precedent in the janus case on a whim as the pulled aoted they just a firstut of the hat, amendment ruling that the first amendment prohibited unions from organizing. my oh my. how can anyone believe they will judge kavanaugh will stick to precedent when justice roberts, justice gorsuch, and justice alito ignore precedent and make their own political rulings regularly? , we need to review the record , judge kavanaugh's written history, where the best clues of his jurisprudence may lie. it is no less than the standard my republican colleagues demanded of them judge kagan during her confirmation process. they went through her entire records. 170,000 documents were sent here. we need those documents now more than ever because this new justice will be so pivotal in determining the future of our nation for so long. could alter the balance of the court in favor of powerful special-interest against working families for a generation. the pro-hard right business wantsage foundation only nominees that will side with

just this year -- we saw the supreme court rule against unions in a really outrageous decision in the janus case, designed to weaken the ability of workers, public employees, to negotiate fair contracts. just this year we saw the supreme court uphold president trump's muslim ban and other important pieces of legislation. this is already a supreme court that, given the option, will rule as they have time and time again, often by a 5-4 vote, in favor of corporations and the wealthy against working people, who will continue to undermine civil rights, voting rights, and access to health care, who are edging closer and closer to ruling that a person's religious beliefs should exempt them from following civil rights laws. so having said that, let me just say very briefly why i oppose the nomination of judge kavanaugh. as it happens, i do not usually believe anything that president trump says because i think, sadly, he is a pathological liar. but i do think this is a moment where we should believe one thing that he said during the campaign. i think in this instance he was actually telling the trut

we have janus in british columbia say we are fans, but they could improve in some areas such as makingontent available in all countries wherever available. it is impossible to watch dubbed foreign movies. subtitles are not great. julie says, i use netflix a few times but i used sky cinema. i have stopped my payments to netflix. that is the thing. as my previous guest said, it is 21 years old and many are in that area now. it has changed. so many different companies in there. disney isa different companies in there. disney is a huge one which is growing in power, taking a lot of content away from these streaming services. there are so many other options out there these days. people take payment holidays away from these things. you are not describing from these things. that's talk about usain bolt. he will start in a league trial for the central coast mariners. when it comes to soccer in australia, i am mariners. when it comes to soccer in australia, iam not mariners. when it comes to soccer in australia, i am not an expert, but my producer is from down under and she says this is not an

fast-forward fo janus versus afscme -- to janus versus afscme. after the long conference at the end of september, the court took the case up. they argued it so we can see what justice gorsuch's views were, since he would be the tie-breaking justice. he asked no questions at argument. we had to wonder where his views -- he had a number of questions. -- he asked no questions braid we had to wonder what his view worse. to wednesday, which the court hadn't done since 2012. this was really hard-fought to the bitter end. it was decided 5-4 purdue much exactly the way you would expect based on knox and harris. justice alito wrote both of those of his opinions -- both of those other opinions. the case came from illinois. it was a great case for picking up on justice kennedy's point at knox. it is my home state, it kills me how much they have gone down since i left. much theent, how government spends, or how much illinois spends on benefits for its public employees, it effects the state's solvency. the opinion had two parts, i think they are both importan

so with janus. the question there was whether public sector employees can be required to join unions without violating the constitution. the claim for those who would defend these sorts of laws would be that they were required in order to make public sector unions effective. the free rider program is they are going to be advocating in favor of higher wages and these sorts of things. the person here says he was not a free rider. he didn't want to go to the destination that the union was taking everyone. the supreme court in a 5-4 decision written by justice alito found it violates the first amendment right against compelled speech. it overturned the decision in 1977 written by justice marshall. there were four dissenters. justice kagan wrote an impassioned defense that she wrote from the bench. and suggested it raises the specter of the first amendment being used as a sword to attack programs as some of the commentators have noted. it had been criticized by the court a bit in recent years. i think it

recently, just discourses, justice robert and the rest traumatically overturning precedent from the janus case on a whim. as the defense noted, they just pull the theory out of a hat, first amendment ruling that the first amendment -- how can anyone believe that they were judge's cap now stick to precedent when justice robert, justice gorsuch, justice alito ignore precedent i made their own political rulings regularly. so, we need to review the record. judge kavanaugh's written history where the best clues of his church jurisprudence ally. it is no less than the standard my republican colleagues demanded of them judge kagan during her confirmation process. they asked for her entire record, 170,000 documents. we need those documents now more than ever. because this new justice would be so pivotal in determining the future of our nation. the nomination could alter the balance of the court in favor of powerful special interest against working families for a generation. the hard right business heritage foundation once only nominees who will side against the average person. and in judge kavana

recently justice gorsuch, justice roberts, and the rest, dramatically overturning precedent in the janus case on a whim as the dissent noted. they just pulled a theory out of the hat. a first amendment ruling that the first amendment prohibited unions from organizing. my oh, my. how can anyone believe that they will stick -- that judge kavanaugh will stick to precedent when justice roberts, justice gorsuch, and justice alito ignore precedent and make their own political rulings regularly? so we need to review the record. judge kavanaugh's written history where the best clues of his jurisprudence may lie. it's no less than the standard my republican colleagues demanded of then-judge kagan during her confirmation process. they asked for her entire records, 170,000 documents were sent here. we need those documents now more than ever because this new justice will be so pivotal in determining the future of our nation for so long. the nomination could alter the balance of the court in favor of powerful special interests against working families for a generation. the hard-right heritage busines

they announce justice alito has our opinion on number 17 whatever of janus versus american federation of municipal state employees. they start handing out the opinions. and the folks really in a hurry, the wire services reporters, grab the opinions and turn around and literally run out of the room. we all know to stand out of the way. if you're not there on a regular basis, you don't necessarily know that. a young reporter kind of got body slammed the other day. someone lost their shoe. the day they announced their travel ban, having learned from this experience, one of the wire reporters turned around and said to a reporter standing at the doorway between the public information office and the pressroom, he said you probably don't want to stand there. she laughed because he thought he was joking. another said no, really you don't want to stand there. in the scrum that followed, somebody said did somebody lose a shoe? [laughter] i go back to the pressroom and start trying to decipher it. who wrote the opinion, which will usually tell you a lot. what was the vote? you try to start pulli

recently as last month, he sided with the majority in overturning a 41-year-old precedent and the janus case. another example is not an at a paraden roe - yesterday, susan collins says she wants the nominee to declare that roe is the law of the land but we heard that from john robertson in 2005 and he went on in 2016 to join a decision where if he had his way, he would've upheld the antiabortion law out of texas. we are here to warn trumps nominee and till susan collins that calling ro a precedent is not enough, not even close. appointedblican nominees proved these words mean nothing when they get to the bench. we need a supreme court justice who will uphold roe, a supreme court justice that believes women's health in 2016 was rightly decided and one that believes that woman has a right to safe, legal abortions in the specifics wed the want our late at today. in recent days, republicans have been trying to lay the groundwork percent in a nomination not have to answer tough questions at a hearing. they have invoked this is the so-called ionsberg wrote with to ginsburgrences in 1993. the

joining us now to discuss this is the global head of asset allocation at janus capital management. when the president of the united states and his closest security staff are trading threats with dude talkrsonnel, about -- do you talk about it? >> this seems like deja vu with north korea. like this is something you have to pay attention to. what is clear is geopolitical risks are on the rise. non risks are on the rise, asset class is immune from being repriced or at risk. this is true in today's backdrop where you have an attack on the fundamental backbone of well functioning global capital markets, namely global free trade is at risk, the independence of central banks is at risk. spend timesage we thinking about is if all asset classes art risk, diversification opportunities might be hard to find. portfolio's your diversification is weekend? vonnie: do you come up with answers? japan,you're looking to is that because you feel like they are less at risk? >> there are pockets of opportunity. insee pockets of opportunity u.k. stocks and with brazil. macrogger picture, at the level, if

the janus case, a 5-4 decision undermining the rights of workers to organize. the ability of workers to organize. what a fundamental right, a key power to be able to participate in the wealth that you worked to create and yet undermined just the week before last by a 5-4 court decision. trump versus hawaii, 5-4 decision upholding a travel ban against muslims, effectively shutting the door of our country to a group of people simply because of their religion. what a 5-4 assault on the freedom of religion. abbotv. perez, greenlighting gerrymandering in texas. violating the rollcall voting -- violating the voting rights act. one case after another coming down in recent weeks about -- coming down against we the people and decided by a single vote. how many cases are we going to see in the coming years where a single vote transformings the landscape of on your country as we know it? where a sing the vote -- single vote takes away the vision of we the people nation? that's why this nomination is so unlike any other recent confirmation that impacts on the court and on

in the wake of the janus decision, as many of you have heard, it was a very, very hard week for labor but one thing we know about organized labor, we always stand up and fight. we will continue to fight and we will honor this victory and we will carry it forward and carry it forward for many more, and never backed down from the horrible decisions that are coming down from the federal government. thank you again and thank you for such a wonderful victory for the men and women and to the working families of san francisco. [applause] >> thank you. as we look forward to the fourth of july weekend and the celebration of our nation's independence, we should be mindful that the 15-dollar an hour minimum wage represents a different type of independence for san francisco workers. thank you everyone for attending today. we will have food shortly. please stick around and we can all get to know each other better. thank you again. [applause] . plause] >> my name is dave, and i play defense. >> my name is mustafa, and i am a midfielder, but right now, i am trying to play as a goalkeeper, because th

that, neil gorsuch talked to me about precedent, i want to underscore what matt brought up in the janus case, and this is just wednesday a few weeks ago that he was part of the 5-4 majority and the key swing vote that overturned a 1977 case called abaaoud versus the detroit board of education. so i don't know if susan collins said what she said, and maybe giving some sort of benefit of the doubt or trying to be diplomatic, but for the man who wrote a book on precedent, he undid one a few days ago. >> and there is a slim majority right now with the republican, and so susan kol can lin, and lisa murkowski as we know who are pro abortion rights will be crucial to get a nominee confirmed and he calls democrats obstructionists, so he is not counting on them, but in the case of the supreme court, was mitch mcconnell the prime person to prevent president obama getting merrick garland confirmed? >> yes. and president trump a year and half into the term is going to have two lifetime appointments to the supreme court, and one other point about the narrowness of the senate right now, and president

janu his life included strong community involvement and folks who knew him wanted the legacy to live on. >>> friends and family of caulkins are hoping to create a statue to hor that sits alongside the jewelry store he operated for more than 60 yearsk >> stanley cs representing the humility, honor of war heroes who served selflessly their community almost above their own needs. stanley never put his business and ambitions above the communityde ors. he was equal lay as involved in the rotary, the creation of the leesburg armt a running his own business. >> stanley, i rememberim three years ago, fire had destroyed his business. >> even under that stretch of what had just happened, he wasn't worried about himself or the money lost. his concern was for his employees. >> fortunately, my insurance mpany pay mgirls' salaries. >> working on the memorial proje project. >> telling stanley's story. he was in world war ii, in a b-17 bomber. mostly with supplies. we're going to help tell more of his story and here we have the vfw hat and there will be pins and emblems on which tells -- so frying t

with a quarter million government union workers potentially impacted by last week's janus ruling, outreach is in overdrive. >> we're planning an all of the above comprehensive educational program to reach the public employees. reporter: according to union stats.com, most of the fallout in the northeast and along the west coast where there are no right to work laws. while nationally a third of government workers belong to unions, the penetration is much higher in blue coastal states, and that's where organized labor called for rallies, blasting the court ruling and vowing to only get stronger. >> this was one of the dumbest things they could possibly do. it will absolutely energize the public sector and the private sector unions in this country. you will see a resurgence. reporter: unions are waging an information campaign, selling members on the value of staying and paying. some are more convinced than others. >> the people who say they have no voice, the union is the ball work, it is the foundation of democracy in this country. >> i have a voice, they have to win me back, and you know, an

violating those very doctrines of, say, respect for precedent which we saw completely violated in the janussion or the citizens united decision. name me a founding father who thought the corporation should spend unlimited money in our elections? didn't happen. so you have to take what they say in the committees with a very big grain of salt. >> so what's the point of having a committee hearing if you're not going to believe what they say? >> that's a very good question, because the committee hearings have become so rote and the dodges have become so standard, and the time that senators are allowed has become so short that it really is beginning to appear much like a sham performance. so i hope that we can actually have robust hearings and explore these questions and try to get real answers. but it's an uphill struggle to have these hearings be anything other than rote proceedings that lead to the end result. >> you're deeply skeptical of the procedure. why not just come out and say, i'm not going to support him? harris did, schumer did. why not you? >> i want to take a look at him and get a

for to give them some rights to janus close to china means the whole institution or you can be sick in july to. see what. the state says. well we liked him more for me if in uganda and you can access social media we want to hear about your experience they fall with this new tax they get and such and you can get in touch with us on social media we're on facebook at facebook dot com slash al-jazeera we're on twitter handle is outraging this use the hash tag eighteen is great on both platforms and you can whatsapp ass or send us a telegram plus nine seven four five zero triple one one four nine. in south africa it's now compulsory for people living in johannesburg to separate household garbage for recycling and it's hoped it will stop landfill sites from filling up too quickly is her with reports. this is one of the biggest landfill sites in johannesburg south africa produces more than one hundred million tons of waste every year government officials say extending landfill sites needs money and more land resources they say they don't have that's why the people of johannesburg will not hav

with the janus decision that attacked the rights of working people and bad decisions on voting rights and the muslim ban. [siren] the service employees international union and two million members stands against this judge, we will fight in the streets. cheers and applause] hey, hey. anybody ready to fight? anybody ready to fight? y'all, we ain't going to stand for brett kavanaugh because the people that are here tonight doesn't trust the supreme court. this is the people's supreme court. are you with me? [cheers and applause] we won't stand for any nominee, no brett kavanaugh who wants to take away our constitutional rights to decide what to do with our own bodies. yes! because when people's rights are under attack, what do you do? fight back. when women's rights are under attack? what do we do? >> stand up and attack. >> what do we do? >> stand up! >> we are going to let him know that we are out here tonight and we are going to come back tomorrow. we are going to be in the states after that. we are going to be damn sure be out here in november. are you with me? [cheers and applause]

fast forward to janus v. afscme, another one of the political unions. after the long conference at the end of september, the court took this case up. and they argued it so we could all see what justice gorsuch's views were, since he would be the tie-breaking justice. he asked no questions at argument. so we had to wonder exactly where his views were. it came down to the very last day of the term. this is kind of an overtime for supreme court nerds, because usually they wrap things up by the last monday of june and this went to wednesday, which the court has not done since i think 2012. this was really hard-fought to the bitter end. it was decided 5-4, pretty much exactly the way you would expect based on knox and harris. justice alito wrote both of those other opinions and he wrote this one as well. the case came from illinois. it was a very good case for picking up on justice kennedy's point at knox. because illinois is broke. it is my home state -- it kills me how much they have gone down hill since i left. [laughter] john e.: i don't think they are c

last month's janus decision made it clear that workers and their unions need a fair voice on the supreme court. unfortunately, judge kavanaugh has a long record of weakening worker protections, undermining union rights, and making it easier for corporations and special interests to tilt the scales of justice in their favor. so i would urge my colleagues who claim to care about the rights and economic security of working families, join me in rejecting this nomination and put the power back into the hands of working families and the middle class. mr. president -- and this point is especially potent given the disgrace we witnessed in helsinki -- every american should be deeply concerned about president trump putting someone on the supreme court who is prepared to protect him from legal attack and do his bidding. and as we all watch, many of us in horror and dismay as president trump continues to do everything in his power to try and discredit the mueller investigation, we cannot forget for a moment that his supreme court nominee suggested in a 2009 law review article that a sitting presid

recently justice gorsuch, justice roberts, and the rest, dramatically overturning precedent in the janus case on a whim as the dissent noted. they just pulled a theory out of the hat. a first amendment ruling that the first amendment prohibited unions from organizing. my oh, my. how can anyone believe that they will stick -- that judge kavanaugh will stick to precedent when justice roberts, justice gorsuch, and justice alito ignore precedent and make their own political rulings regularly? so we need to review the record. judge kavanaugh's written history where the best clues of his jurisprudence may lie. it's no less than the standard my republican colleagues demanded of then-judge kagan during her confirmation process. they asked for her entire records, 170,000 documents were sent here. we need those documents now more than ever because this new justice will be so pivotal in determining the future of our nation for so long. the nomination could alter the balance of the court in favor of powerful special interests against working families for a generation. the hard-right heritage busines

janus, missouri, republicans. good morning. caller: i will try to be fast.y main point was that the people who are in favor of ago,ion rights, 150 years would have been saying if you do not want a slave, do not have one. hope going to change and i we do not have to fight over it. host: on the first point, explain the connection between those. caller: people say if you do not like abortion, do not have one. have you never heard anybody say that? host: i just wanted to have you explain the connection. what is your second point? caller: we need to get mccain out of the senate because he is too sick to vote and his hatred for trump has poisoned his mind. it is so close, they need to have him replaced and put somebody else in because that will give us one extra vote. cannote way he is, they count on 51 votes. this is one other thing. polarization in this administration is like the polarization in the last administration. conservatives were upset with that but we did not want to protest. their lion int the senate and he was replaced with a republican. i am wonderi