there is a guy who is the town drunk, and his name is john casey. i met him, and he was drinking an enormous 10 of the year. it was of vero -- enormous can of beer. it was unfaia barrel. he was thrown into jail. casey walked back into the court and says, what happened to my case? the judge says, you pleaded guilty. casey walks out. people ask me, when do you think is the worst case of ordinary justice then clearly when people spend decades in prison, those kilmeade. to be innocent in prison and to have a community who thought -- those kilmeadl me. to be innocent in prison and to have a community who thought you were guilty, but there was this guy, and no one stood up. there was a line of public defenders in the first row who could have said, where is jon casey? nobody stood up, and that is one of the problems of ordinary injustice. they become so worried about their own interests that they stop thinking about the people they are supposed to be protecting. >> we should have invited that judge to come to see what he would say. last year, our reporter

i disagree with everything john said with regard to abortion in casey. i think roe v. wade was recent. the supreme court has said from the century that there is a right to privacy and protecting the constitution of the court has found that many aces prior to roe protecting right to life in right to marriage, right to pro-pro-creek, right to custody of one's children, the right to keep the family together, the right to control the upbringing of children and the right to purchase contraceptives. the issue before the supreme court was in light of all of those prior decisions that prohibition on abortion is -- to a woman's right to privacy. it was obviously the court said yes. then there was the harder question of does the state have a compelling interest in protecting fetal life and i think with the court said there was given the lack of consensus are decided i've decided that when human life begins the choice should be left to each woman and that is what roe v. wade is all about. now the statement that john refers to an casey actually goes to think that many justices ove

i disagree with having john said with regard to abortion and casey. i think roe v wade was a well reasoned. the supreme court has said that there is a right to privacy protected in the constitution read the court found in many instances prior the right to marry, appropriate, custody of one's children, -- procreate, custody of one's children, the use of contraceptives. in light of all of the prior decisions, this prohibition of abortion infringe the right to privacy? i think the court said yes in light of those preside -- precedents. does the state have a compelling interest in protective -- protect of fetal life? the choice should be left to each woman. that is what roe v. wade is all about. i think the most eloquent was justice robert jackson in the west virginia board of education v. barnett, where the state cannot require students to salute the flag. he said the whole purpose of individual rights of the constitution is to take the most precious liberties and out of the vicissitudes of popular, majoritarian will. that is all casey was saying, roe v.

casey cayden and a bunch of other people. and they were told by philip randolph and above all else they were humanlike anybody anybody, you are represented. james farmer from the core represents you, john lewis from others represents you. also from the uaw represents you and so on. but eventually there was a compromise where daisy bates was allowed to speak for the women and given a short speech to read and a group of eight women were asked to stand up to about and except applause. but i believe that played a major role in the emerging women's rights because there was a strong sharp powerful bolt notion. hold on a second. how is a different for blacks to be claiming their rights which they deserve more different from women to claim their rights? it became pretty clear pretty quick to the smartest people an activist politics it was not right. then there was another incident that had never been covered by anybody and only speculation on my part. it is not in the book. i believe the margin washington was a major influence to create to the free speech movement which began the next year at the university of california berkeley. one of the main leaders was involved in the civil-rights moveme

john m. roll united states courthouse. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the measure appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, february 2, that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and following any leader remarks senator paul be recognized in morning business for up to 20 minutes in order to deliver his maiden speech to the senate. i finally ask that following his remarks the sen