in john marshall's day, the justices asked no questions. they sat there and listened to the attorneys. the attorneys did not submit briefs and so is entire presentation was oral. there were no limits on the length of the argument and there was no prohicks on tag team arguments. a party could have two or three torrents -- attorneys arguing on his or her behalf. that was john marshall's practice and the practice of the other great justices during the founding era. justice story and other names you would recognize. i think it would have presented some historical evidence if at least one of the articles had pointed out that fact. something that is unintentionally wrong, for several years now a widespread criticism of our court is that we are very pro-business. we always decide cases in favor of business as opposed to employees and consumers. this has been mentioned in a lot of articles, it's been mentioned by a lot of public officials. now, a few months ago, i was running on my treadmill and when i do that, i almost always watch television to o

chief justice john marshall. we're not all originalists here, and originalism does not define the legal mainstream. in an interview published in the california lawyer in january, justice scalia made the shocking statement that he does not believe the united states constitution guarantees women equal protection of the law. this came out this january. this is a sitting supreme court justice, saying the constitution does not guarantee women equal protection under the law. now, the text of the 14th amendment says no person shall be denying of equal protection of the law, and after decades of precedent, unanimous consent supreme court decisions agree that women are protected. but regardless of text and precedence, justice scalia says it can't be so because that's not what the drafters of the 14th amendment intended. this is not the american mainstream. following this line of reasoning, the minimum wage would be unconstitutional, schools could still be legally segregated, states could prohibit married couples from usin

chief justice john marshall. we're not all originalists here, and originalism does not define the legal mainstream. in an interview published in the california lawyer in january, justice scalia made the shocking statement that he does not believe the united states constitution guarantees women equal protection of the law. this came out this january. this is a sitting supreme court justice, saying the constitution does not guarantee women equal protection under the law. now, the text of the 14th amendment says no person shall be denying of equal protection of the law, and after decades of precedent, unanimous consent supreme court decisions agree that women are protected. but regardless of text and precedence, justice scalia says it can't be so because that's not what the drafters of the 14th amendment intended. this is not the american mainstream. following this line of reasoning, the minimum wage would be unconstitutional, schools could still be legally segregated, states could prohibit married couples from usin

and in john marshall's day, the justices asked no questions, and the attorneys did not submit briefs. the entire presentation was oral and no length of the argument, and no prohibition of tag-team arguments. that was john marshall's practice, and of others in the founding era, i think it may have provided some historical perspective if at least one of the articles would have pointed out that fact. and on to something that is plain wrong and again i think unintentionally so. for several years now a widespread popular criticism of our court is that we are pro-business. we always decide cases in favor of business as opposed to employees, and people and consumers. this is mentioned in a lot of articles and mentioned by a lot of public officials. now a few months ago, i was rudding on my treadmill, and when i when -- running on my treadmill and flipping through the channels to make 45 minutes pass relatively painlessly. and i found slim pickings, nothing that interested me. and finally i settled on a c-span program that featured a debate between a very, known comme commentator and he began

that was john marshall's practice.hat was the practice of the other great justices during the founding era. maybe it would have provided historical perspective if at least one of the articles have pointed out that fact. let me point to something that is just plain wrong but unintentionally so. for several years now, a widespread popular criticism of our court is that we are very pro-business. we always decide cases in favor of business as opposed to employees and people who are and consumers. this has been mentioned in a lot of articles. this has been mentioned in a lot of -- by a lot of public officials. a few months ago, was running on my treadmill and when i do that, i almost always watch television to overcome the boredom and the discomfort of what i am doing. i am flipping through the channels looking for something that will make 45 minutes or so past relatively painlessly. i found slim pickings. there was nothing that really interested me. finally, reluctantly, i settled on a cspan program that featured a debate

third year of his presidency in one thousand and three in a case called marbury vs madison and john marshall who was the head the chief justice of the supreme court and thomas jefferson's second cousin and chief political enemy in the marbury vs madison case took unto himself said we the court have decided that we can strike down laws prior to that if the president was constitutionally could veto it if the legislature did then what the president did was they could override it and this is how thomas jefferson president of the united states responded to that case he said if this opinion then indeed is our constitution a complete failure to say legally a suicide it is latin for leases it for intending to establish three departments coordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another. if this decision has given according to this opinion to one of them alone that would be to the supreme court the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others and to that one too which is unelected by an independent of the nation there were another was the supreme court has this pow

there were a number of biographies of washington that were published, the best known one was by john marshall which you can still get now. it's available. but it was a huge, ponderous biography. john adams compared it to a mausoleum. [laughter] and it's very dull, it's very hard to get through, it's very long, and it created a washington who's very instant, who is that man of marble, that statue, that image. the genius of parson weems is he understood that was not enough. the statue was not enough. the painting, the image, the face was not enough. washington needed to be real for us. he needed to bring washington to school children, to grandparents, to farmers, to pioneers, to workers, to everybody. and the best way he knew to do that was to tell a series of stories, a series of anecdotes about george that would make him into a real human being, make him into somebody that everybody could feel they could shake his hand, they could look him in the eye, they could tell him their story. and george washington would understand. it's almost as if they could feel, i'm a farmer, i want to tell george

that was john marshall's practice during the founding era. i think maybe it would have provided some historical perspective it at least one of the articles had pointed out that fact. now on to something that is just plain wrong and, again, i think unintentionally so. the widespread popular criticism of our court is that we are very pro-business, that we always decide cases in favor of business and against employees and people who are consumers. this has mentioned by a lot of public officials. a few months ago, i was running on my treadmill. when i do that, i almost always watch television to overcome the boredom and the discomfort of what i am doing. is what the thing to the channels to look for something that will make 45 minutes past relatively painlessly. i found nothing that interested me. finally, i settled on a c-span program that featured a debate between a distinguished commentator on the supreme court and another person. i would not have watched it if the topic was squarely about the courts. within a few minutes, the commentator on t

i'm sure that john marshall would be overturning -- turning over in his grave if he heard that about modern 20th century and 21st century judges. the problem with this approach is that it is the exact opposite of what judges are supposed to be. judges are supposed to determine the facts and apply the law. that is what their oath demands and that is what judges must do for our judicial to be -- remain independent and impartial. in addition to allowing empathy to affect his decision making, judge chen appears willing to inject his personal views into judging. both his writing and public comments while as a magistrate judge suggests that judge chen believes judges should interpret the law according to their personal understandings and preferences. this is a classic definition of judicial activism. for example, in discussing his work as a magistrate judge, he stated in a speech in 2007 before the american constitution society that he finds -- quote -- "most rewarding contributing to the development of the law via public -- published opinions, especially if it comports with my view of jus

almost 200 years ago the great chief justice, john marshall, made clear that the court was going to read the broad phrases of the constitution differently than it might read a tax statute or a building code. marshall wrote, if we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of government, we shall find it so pernicious that its operation we shall be compelled to discard it. marshall and his successors in the high court understood that when we phrase the meaning of the constitution in place we limit our capacity to make progress as a people. progrets hasn't come easy. it wasn't until the 1940's that the court applied the first amendment establishment clauses to local states and governments to establish the separation of church and state. it wasn't until brown vs. education that they ruled racial segregation unconstitutional. and one person, one vote. and not until the 1970's did they have constitutional equality for women. as we interpret the document in a little way we shall found ourselves in a country we did not recognize. constitutional fundamentalism makes difficult choi

vice president marshall: it is good to hear commissioner chan. >> john's grill. the maltese falcon. >> we have all of these police chiefs and all these politicians and famous people on the wall, and now we have the chief on the wall. >> thank you. president mazzucco: any further comments? before moving on to lyell item 4 d? -- before moving on to line item 4d? secretary falvey: item 4d, the commission announcements and scheduling of items. president mazzucco: commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: this is to talk about what the police department might do in terms of raising the level of comfort in the community around the relationship in general between police officers, the police department, and members of that community and to focus in on that. what we were hearing the other night is not uncommon, with what we have heard throughout the country and what often happens when there are wars going on, when there are issues of ethnicity and religion that come up, and it was disturbing to hear that in our city and those comments, to the extent that the departmen

paul marshal of the hudson of religion freedom as well as our own expert john waage will join us in just a moment. first, white house reporter jennifer wishon brings us thr report on the president's speech. >> as a revolutionary wave continues to spraed across the middle east and africa, president obama says, released a bomb shell on israel and palastinian. requiring israel to give up land it gained during the 1967 war including east jerusalem. >> we believe the borders of israel and palastinian should have mutually agreed spots and secure for both states. the palastinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential in a sovereign and contiguous state. >> president says his position is likely to angry israelis, especially those already disillusioned with his policy. >> no one wants to wear his face, no one likes him. he is only causing problems. >> as the arabs create new governments, president obama called for equal rights for weem and freedom of rights -->> these revolts -- would shepherd them and help them become a republic, it could be a nightmare fo

property and this is the pair problem you're wonderful john i put off to a friend yeah i do for a laugh if you carry marshall they share marshall when osama bin ladin there was a caption last week on sky news or some of bin ladin says there were not be peace in palestine until the rights of palestinians there be interrupted care marshall who was watching the massacre in homs of syrian supported by iran by the way of syrian tanks and to march or so come off it everybody i talk to from bank. a c two to cairo to two to tunisia and now here and holmes says we reject the big lie the bedroom lies that says it's israel's paul ryan i don't even need to get professional randi to weigh what america just air marshall explained this is pretty high but he is very smart. people freedom that's what all right i'm sorry we've run out of time talks a lot of time we have just run out of time thank you for this very spirited debate many thanks to my guest today and to rand london and in irvine and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.t. see you next time you remember cross-talk rules. can. reach you the latest scienc

john sasaki, ktvu channel 2 news. >>> the suspect in an oakland murder who landed on the u.s. marshal's 15 most wanted list is behind bars tonight. the marshal service says oakland police found shaun michael sullivan in a marijuana grow house yesterday. sun van was wanted for a shooting last november that left one man dead and another paralyzed. >>> a man in family turmoil and an award, what honor arnold schwarzenegger and maria shriver earned tonight and her thoughts on her parents separation. >> back here with your weekend forecast, a lot of fog to talk about. >>> sharks jump out to a quick start at vancouver in a >>> santa clara police tell ktvu forensic evidence helped them break the case of the killing of a 62-year-old man known as the church man. police arrested 24-year-old jay renoma sis la after questioning him. he leaves -- jay ron mass sell la -- jairon massella. the weapon was an aluminum baseball bat. the victim was reportedly called the church man because he always carried a bible with him. >>> police are investigating whether road rage played a role in a crash that sent a

john sasaki, ktvu channel 2 news. >>> the suspect in an oakland murder who landed on the u.s. marshal's 15 most wanted list is behind bars tonight. the marshal service says oakland police found shaun michael sullivan in a marijuana grow house yesterday. sun van was wanted for a shooting last november that left one man dead and another paralyzed. >>> a man in family turmoil and an award, what honor arnold schwarzenegger and maria shriver earned tonight and her thoughts on her parents separation. >> back here with your weekend forecast, a lot of fog to talk about. >>> sharks jump out to a quick start at vancouver in a must win playoff game, but like the giants last year, they pull it off. we'll have highlights in sports. >>> santa clara police tell ktvu forensic evidence helped them break the case of the killing of a 62-year-old man known as the church man. police arrested 24-year-old jay renoma sis la after questioning him. he leaves -- jay ron mass sell la -- jairon massella. the weapon was an aluminum baseball bat. the victim was reportedly called the church man because he always carri

worked with senator john kerry to draft legislation for many of these new initiatives, and they can make an important difference. altman the, no one should expect congress to pass a marshallmiddle east. these new members were elected cut spending, not increase foreign assistance. that is just a fact. if we're on to help countries like tunisia and egypt to grow their economies, we are need to be much more innovative. we should begin of negotiations on free trade agreements with egypt and tunisia and explore ideas for new trade areas in the middle east and north africa. we will be to find ways to marshal support of our private sector as well as the generous the of what the partners -- whose leadership has been indispensable. it is in the speeders -- spirit that i will be teaming up with others to go to egypt and tunisia next month. our goal is to reinforce the message that greater economic reform can lead to greater foreign investment. there's another country that should continue to emerge as a pillar of stability in a democratic middle east. that is iraq. i travel to baghdad two weeks ago, and its system continues to take two steps forward and one step back. it is largely