chief justice. so with aereo's antennas and its dvr's, we can, with about the length of the size of this counsel table here, service tens of thousands of people in the new york area. we can provide the antennas and we can provide the dvr's and it's a very compact, small space. and then if we expand and we're able to continue to be in business and we get more subscribers in brooklyn, we might add another row that would be the size of the counsel tables behind me. that aspect of the technology goes to the modules that are used for cloud computing where you basically can add additional servers, add additional hard disk space and then when new consumers activate -- and let me just be clear about this, when they sign up, their system is completely empty. there's no content being provided. there's equipment that's being provided. so when they activate the system and they say, i want to watch the news at 6:00, they then start the process that then fills their individually assigned storage with the 6:00 new

justice abella from the supreme court of canada, the justice from the supreme court of israel and justice ginsberg from the supreme court united states. before judy woodruff will introduce each of the justices and begin an historic and extra ordinary conversation i want to say about how this event came to being and why we wanted to do it. justice and her husband erving were friends when we were posted in canada a few years ago. i was as you will all be tonight, moved by her personal journey and undying faith in humanity. i also learned that she and justice ginsberg were girlfriends. when we moved to washington it seemed natural to arrange a conversation between these two extraordinary women. that opportunity arose when i had the privilege of attending a small private dinner at the former mayor of montclair's home. she had justice ginsberg with her and i said ask her if she would be interested in conversation and she immediately agreed and she said well, why don't we invite doris my friend? and so it then became this threesome with chief justice dorek. it would not have been possible had j

from the justices, even justices sotomayor and justice kagan at the confirmation hearing supported cameras in the courtroom are now starting to say these things. this is the trend. we see nominees start out in support. get on the court and start to change their mind, which suggests we can't really just wait out this issue. it's not just an age issue. this is a concern about the public. we keep hearing this concern that the public won't understand what they're seeing. they won't understand oral argument is just part of the process. they won't understand that the justices have to be harsh on both sides. they might think someone is getting ganged up on. i find this to be a very concerning issue because it suggests that more information is actually going to be bad for the public. that the public needs to be shielded from information. and it does seem to have an elitism to it, that already those of us who do read the transcripts and listen to the audio or read the reports from the supreme court press corps, that we're the types that can understand where oral argument falls in the process but tv

sota yior and showed a lot of tension among the justices. five different opinions, more of just saying where we are in america in terms of affirmative action even that was not the exact legal question that had to do ith the power of the voters to enact it. tension.more about the hen you say dissent mayor read it out? >> yes, mostly we have these in une when a dissenting justice feels so strongly it will be read from the bench. majority t is the opinion. after justice kennedy wrote for went on about 12 minutes saying why the considerate was ruling this way , favor of the michigan ban he then explained for more minutes exactly what was at stake and essentially said not ruling wrong but you don't get it. you don't understand how to rtant these programs are people on the margins. this was the first time we heard this voice. think of when she was nominated barack oved in 2009 by obama, the first frican-american president people wondered how she would use her voice and it came this week. >> get the legal basis for saying you can't overrule the mak

justice abella from the supreme court of canada, the justice from the supreme court of israel and justice ginsberg from the supreme court united states. before we introduce each of the justices and begin an historic and extraordinary conversation i want to say about how this event came to being and why we wanted to do it. justice and her husband erving were friends when we were posted in canada a few years ago. i was, as you will all be tonight, moved by her personal journey and undying faith in humanity. i also learned that she and justice ginsberg were girlfriends. when we moved to washington it seemed natural to arrange a conversation between these two extraordinary women. that opportunity arose when i had the privilege of attending a small private dinner at the former mayor of montclair's home. she had justice ginsberg with her and i said ask her if she would be interested in conversation and she immediately agreed and she said well, why don't we invite doris my friend? and so it then became this threesome with chief justice dorek. it would not have been possible had justice ginsberg

from the justices, even justices sotomayor and justice kagan at the confirmation hearing supported cameras in the courtroom are starting to say these things. this is the trend. we see nominees start out in support. they get on the court and start to change their mind, which suggests we can't really just weight out this issue. it's not just an age issue. this is a concern about the public. we keep hearing this concern that the public won't understand what they're seeing. they won't understand oral argument is just part of the process. they won't understand that the justices have to be harsh on both sides. they might think someone is getting ganged up on. i type this to be a very concerning issue because it suggests that more information is actually going to be bad for the public. that the public needs to be shielded from information. and it does seem to have an elitism to it, that already those of us who do read the transcripts and listen to the audio or read the reports from the supreme court press corps, that we're the types that can understand where oral argument falls in the process but

we need to hear what the is the right funding to make sure we do justice to the justice department. i now turn to senator shelby. a strong advocate of national security and supporting our local law enforcement and we appreciate his efforts on behalf of women and children. sfwl >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, general holder. today we will hear about the 2015 justice department budget request and the department chair general will testify about his work and the difficulty he has encountered in executing his oversight responsibility. today i welcome you both. the 2015 budget request for the department of justice totals 27.4 billion and i am concerned while the 2015 budget reports to recognize the multi faceted work, but it fails to put priorties first. programs like smart on crime and 12 new grant programs i believe take center stage. law enforcement and national security priorities, the main central mission of the department, i believe take a back-seat. this approach is evident in the cuts required of nearly every component within the department of justice. the 2015 budget requir

justice scalia is the longest-serving justice.ppointed by reagan in 1986, he is called an originalist, meaning he believes the constitution ought to be interpreted more or less as the founding fathers meant for it to be interpreted. you want change, he says, change the legislature, change the law. his job is to interpret the law. justice ginsburg was appointed to the supreme court by president bill clinton in 1993. her view is the constitution is what has been called a living document, meaning it changes as society changes, one linked together. tradition and precedent matter, but they do not determine her legal judgment. both justices have devoted their lives to the law, teaching, democracy, and freedom. we are going to discuss freedom of the press, but let's start with what the concept of freedom means. its origin, its meaning, at the time of the revolution, and its meaning in today's america. i have always been fascinated by the fact that the first commandment of the 10 commandments in the bible and the first amendment in the co

justice ginsburg? >> i would not call it narrow, but there are no absolute rights, even though you read the first amendment it sounds that way. it says, shall pass no law. of course, there are laws that congress can pass. so the idea of an absolute right i do not know any right that does not have limitations. >> even at that time in the minds of the founders? >> i think so. >> explain why in the first amendment after listing the freedom of speech, the founding fathers found it necessary or wanted to add four crucially important words -- "or of the press." freedom of the press is what they were talking about. why did they add that phrase? why was it necessary, justice calia? >> it is a natural addition. it means the freedom to speak and to write. it was not referring to the institutional press, the guy running around with a fedora hat with a sticker that says "press," i am not sure that they need to refer to the institutional press in those days. the freedom to speak and to publish. and that clause has

justice scalia asked you the question about doesn't that go to novelty, but didn't justice breyer say in mayo that novelty can be relevant to patent to patent eligibility? he said there's an overlap. >> well, he said there's an overlap. here in this context, i think, basically the respondents' theory would mean that they are completely coterminous. and i don't think that's what the court meant. and also, we know from diehr that there's got to be at least some significant limitations on the extent to which novelty has to be built into 101. that is the province of 102 and 103. and, as i said, congress modified the system of adjudication to create an administrative mechanism that allows you to get to 102 and 103. and at least in context, it's important to realize there have been 11 cases since that was created. 9 of the 11 have been knocked down on 102 or 103 grounds and not on 101 grounds. and it seems to me that's the answer to this problem, is leave 101 as the coarse filter. if on its face it states these kinds of broad abstract principles, fundamental truths, and even if it says use

justice department. i now turn to my vice chairman, senator shelby, a very strong securityof a national and also in supporting our local law enforcement. we are particularly appreciative of his efforts on behalf of women and children. >> thank you. again, to the committee, at attorney general holder. today, we will have from attorney general holder about 2015epartment of justice's budget request. michael horwitz, the department , as ther general chairperson has artie said, will testify about his work and the difficulties he has encountered in executing this oversight is possibility. both. i welcome you the 2015 budget request for the department of justice totals $27.4 billion. i'm concerned that while the departments 2015 budget reports -- purports to recognize the multifaceted nature of the departments were, it fails to buty prioritize anything the administration's pet projects. programs such as smart on crime, now is the time, and nearly 12 new grant programs, i believe take center stage. meanwhile, la

aside, i know the justice department takes it seriously. we are a big fan of the internal rule that the justice department has and in terms of the political accountability point, the current draft of the shield you'll actually build a minute says the attorney general has to certify that the rules have been complied with for that political accountability point to try to maintain the discipline that has grown up over the years within the department on that point. enhanced with the new guidelines it just recently came out. theoes address a couple of main things that have people riled up over the last year, the use of the carveout with the rosen situation and also the notice issue that was front and center after the ap situation. it expressly addresses both of those concerns. to just apply to telephone records and now it is broader.r -- i do find a director of national intelligence part to be troubling. the fact that they have now sort of gone to a definition of ordinary newsgathering for the applicability of the guidelines rather than just new

justice kagan is on my left. justice sotomayor or on my right. children in school, and watch what is going on in the and they see the women are not there just to look good. my colleagues are likely participants. anyone who has been to the court knows that. journalistsveral counted the number of questions each justice asked, and they decided justice sotomayor or won the prize even more than justice scalia. the women are not shrinking violets. lonely being the only woman. for sandras better who was a more imposing presence. >> i don't think there is anyone questioning how imposing you are. you can take both questions. >> if i am asked if it's a coincidence, this is for social logical research. i think you are right that women are more on the liberal side. not only when we are talking rights,nder and women's true that mosts of the women justices are on the liberal side. you have to be very careful labeling judges. there is something in it. there was a time when we were five women in the court. we sat sometimes in groups of three. we had a panel of t

justice department engagement is significant. where do things stand, in terms of the review in 2013? >> i do not know the exact number. it was 17 or 21 things that came out of the review for the president asked us to review and we have now completed all of the things that the president asked us to do. which, i think, was as far as we could go using only the executive power that we had. there is still a need for legislation to deal with the commonsense measures that would help you with the gun violence problem in this country. we have tried to do what we could, with background checks. there is still a need to close the gun show loophole. also, to deal with the large clips. these are things that are overwhelmingly supported by american people and make sense. they would keep american people safe. a need for congressional action and let me say, in the interim, i think it is important and i would like to work closely with the department of justice and atf to deal with the on the ground problems that we have in america today, short of

chief justice. it is also true that this -- >> well, if they want to do that, they can just pay a greater salary and let the employees go in on the exchange. >> exactly, which is, by the way, why comparing the $2,000 penalty to the cost of the health care is a false it's a false comparison. >> it's not called a penalty. it's called a tax. and it's calibrated and it's calibrated . >> she's right about that. >> and it has been treated for some purposes as a penalty. and i think for this purposes, it certainly feels punitive. and if i could finish the thought about why it's a false comparison, the 2,000 penalty to the cost of the health insurance, is that it's going to very much hurt hobby lobby if all of the sudden it doesn't provide health care to its employees. and in order to compensate for that, it would have to increase the wages. and i think it would be worse off as a result of this. but if i could also -- >> well, let's say that that's right. let's say that they have to increase the wages a lit

chief justice. i'm going to start with a sentence from crawford, decided the same day as seattle, where this court defined what a racial classification is -- a racial classification either says or implies that persons are to be treated differently on account of race." it doesn't say anything about laws with or without a racial focus. and we think that is the test that ultimately should come out of the decision in this case. now, my friends on the other side disagree with that, because if that's the test section 26 is constitutional. and so they draw this false dichotomy between laws that involve race and laws that don't involve race, we will put them in two separate chambers of the legislature and charge a fee if you want to talk about -- about race. and we know that can't be right, because of, chief justice roberts, your observation that the whole point of equal protection is to take race off the table when everyone is being treated the same. that's why they can't -- >> you quoted -- you quoted fro

he was studying justice. it is our responsibility in the community to make sure that there is justice for him as long as it takes years and years there is going to be justice for him. if it takes years to take those guns from all of these officers here so the majority are their work is going to be composed of non-violent work, work that we do in the community. the violence prevention work that we do in the community, we've had to deal with people that point guns to our faces, the violence prevention work that we do. there is a shotgun put to her face and she was verbally able to disarm the young man verbally with the gun to her face able to disarm him. and the police officers are not trained enough to do that. there is something definitely very wrong with this police department that you cannot able to disarm people verbally. that is the primary thing that they should be able to do is to talk. they are peace officers. buddhism is peace. that is what we will bring to this department to this state, to this natio

justice should consider the giant oval when they retire. >> do you think it's something that justicesit's certainly a natural and appropriate thing to think about your successor. >> stevens' comments came after the dean of the law school penned an op-ed in "the new york times" urging ruth bader ginsburg, the court's most senior justice to retire before the november elections this year, ensuring that a democratically controlled administration could confirm that. but seemingly when touched on politics and urge older citizens to rise up in revolt. antonia scala told students while they ask tax, if it goes to a certain level, you should revolt. while a scalia-led insurrection is not something to lose sleep over. the political activity in scalia's wife maureen is cause for concern. in june, the court will rule on the massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone, one that exists outside of abortion clinics. maureen scalia is a hitted pro-rights person who aims to dissuade people from undergoing abortion. and a counselor at the hope crisis pregnancy center. two organizations which would be directly aff

has been helpful to have the justice department so involved. officergot to know the into the could she -- and liquid seat prevention. -- by requiring to have a presence in just 30 states, rather than the current requirement to serve at least 45 states. obviously, and you are representing the second smallest --te in the country, i worry are you going to give priority that havel programs shown a proven capacity? >> we certainly want to support -- again, what we want to do is try different things. for those things that the evidence shows work, we want to support those. to the extent that you have a gep's perhapsoj to talkback, i want about that, because i don't want size to be the prime determinant and how we are apportioning our funds or how we are using our grantmaking capability. we want to make sure that in large cities and small towns, to the extent we can, a positive justice department presence is there. know the, i just might nations immigration court system. you have 32 vacancies, nearly of the judges are eligible for requirement. cases of

chief justice. a couple of points. first, i think, justice kagan, in response to your hypothetical, the concession that in hindsight there may have been a valid security rationale ends this case, because if it was true in hindsight, it was certainly true at the time in the kind of rapid in the kind of rapid decisionmaking that was called for, as the chief justice alluded to. i think at that point the case is over in our favor. second, the kinds of discovery that my friend on the other side -- >> could i just clarify a factual matter. there are two alleyways. there was one on third street that the president went into, and then there is one by the patio dining room. what access was there between fourth street and the patio? because i thought that the alley was on california street, the entrance to the alley was on california street. >> the entry to the alley is on california street. that's the one where the anti-bush demonstrators were. the alley that the motorcade went through, which is on third street, which is neither

that is justice scalia. now, you can't avoid disclosure because you might get your feelings hurt or face public backlash. george soros has been subjected to lots of criticism as have the koch brothers. that's part of the rough-and-tumble of a vibrant democracy and spirit event. individuals and corporations should not be able to spend millions of dollars on tv ads eating up or praising can't -- beating up or praising candidates without telling the public who they are. as justice scalia said, that state of affairs quote does not resemble the home of the brave unquote. finally, senator mcconnell has been conveniently inconsistent in his application of his concern about alleged harm of disclosure. currently candidates for federal office must disclose all the contributions their campaigns receive above $200 up to the current limit of $2600 per election. senator mcconnell says he is still in favor of those disclosures and the disclosure of contributions to political party organizations. so i ask you why is it in p

side, justice sotomayor or and justice the dissent.e justice elena kagan was recused, that is why itis -62. 6-2. is presumably, she was involved in this case to some level when she was solicitor general. host: let's look at what justice kennedy had to say. this is not about how racial preferences should be resolved, it is about who should resolve it. there is no authority for the judiciary to set aside michigan lost that commit this to the voters. what is he saying? about this case was not -- reading, giving a summation of his 18 page opinion when he spoke from the bench. whethernot about universities can have affirmative action policies, they can. that court has ruled that they can, although the majority thinks it is very tenuous. this is about whether states can choose or a government body can but we aree they can going to have a referendum in our state to decide whether they can. the voters say they cannot have . that becomes law if voters decide that, they have overruled what the court has said universities can do. it is not so much over affirmative action policies over what poli

and i just want justice, i want something done about this. about my son. and as i always showed this is all that i have left of my son. his dead body. this is something that i have to keep showing, i'm tired of the pain. i am tired of the heart ache. i miss my child. and this is what they done to him. and this is me standing over my son. i would not wish this on any mother. and i know that people are always ask me why do i come here and i continue to do this? let a mother have a child, and keep that baby in her stomach for nine months, and somebody take him. i miss him so much. april 6th, is coming up. and i still have no justice. but i want the people to see what i go through every day. they took my child from me. please remember these names, these are the guys that did this to my child. >> thank you, miss brown. >> thank you. >> again, if anybody in the public watchg

justice scalia is the longest-serving justice.ppointed by reagan in 1986, he is called an original list, meaning he believes the constitution ought to be interpreted more or less as the founding fathers meant for it to be interpreted. you want change, he says, change the legislature of change the law. his job is to interpret the law. justice ginsburg was appointed to the supreme court by president bill clinton in 1993. her view is the constitution is what has been called a living document, meaning it changes as society changes, one linked together. tradition and president matter, dent, but they do not determine her judgment. both justices have devoted their law, teaching, democracy, and freedom. we are going to discuss freedom of the press, but let's start with what the concept of freedom means. meaning, at the time of the record revolution, and its meaning in today's america. i have always been fascinated by the fact that the first commandment of the 10 commandments in the bible and the first amendment in the thetitution both str

thank you, justice stevens.two minutes to see if the roundtable, and you, guessed the answer. predicting the future is a pretty difficult thing to do. but, manufacturing in the united states means advanced technology. we learned that technology allows us to be craft oriented. no one's losing their job. there's no beer robot that has suddenly chased them out. the technology is actually creating new jobs. siemens designed and built the right tools and resources to get the job done. ♪ no matter what kind of business you own, at&t business experts can help keep it running... seamlessly. so you can get back to what you love. when everyone and everything works together, business just sings. and i know there are many myths out there about a reverse mortgage, so i want you to know the facts. there are currently no credit score or income requirements to qualify. you can get tax-free money from the equity in your home. you can use the money to pay off your current mortgage if you have one. the remaining money can be used

now the prison guard population is 1/3 of the justice department. so we have got to keep the bad people off the street, but are we just loading up our federal prisons, and are there other ways where we protect america but it is almost impossible to keep up with this prison population demand. viewsyou give us yourv on the resources needed? >> we have to focus on the intake. then focus that the people that are rotted to the system are actually charged. ofety of people that work the federal bureau of prisons. the people that are there on a day-to-day basis is the ones that we have to keep uppermost in our minds. our budget requests a total of $6.8 million to maintain the enhancements provided in the and support mandatory prison operations. one of the things we want to do as well as prioritize the filling of staff positions that we have adequate numbers of people in our prisons. that will not only mean that people are treated fairly, hu manely in the system. it also keeps people our employees safe. we have a good relationship with good, renewed and rela

on the other hand you have justice sotomayor and justice ginsburg and arguing something different.racial discrimination it can reveal itself by social and economic conditions that suggest racial disadvantage. and that's what justice sotomayor was indicating in her powerful dissent. >> think that is very well put. and speaking to the fact. this comes up in a lot of civil rights laws. whether there will be a systemic analysis. what is the aggregate impact, versus did you find, as you put it personal, discrimination. but there is also something fascinating going on with the justices been to law school and been to the environments. look back at the programs in higher education. take a listen to something, justice sotomayor said on cbs. what it means to be a successful minority and think about affirmative action. take a listen. >> you can't be a minority in the society without having someone express disapproval about affirmative action. >> what is she getting at there? >> well, it is very interesting. justices sotomayor and thomas have in some ways expressed a similar view about some of

we will hear from supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, along with canadian supreme court justicealie -- abella. plus a former member of the israeli supreme court. judy woodruff moderates this event that was held at the national museum of women in the arts in march. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the national museum in the arts where leadershiparts, and come together every day. and we are so glad to have you for this evening with our three justices. to be very pleased partnering once again with the embassy of france and especially want to give a thanks to madame sofie for being a a us.erful partner with [applause] my remarks tonight are logistics. willuldville this -- we have this wonderful conversation this evening and that will end with q&a. at 6:00 we will go to the third floor for a reception and then be an hour later, i town in at 7:00 p.m. town in the great hall. to introduce madame dalatra to make her remarks. much.you very >> rest reassured we will be to english. h is a very personal event and i to thank

i think that was at the root of justice scalia's question and justice breyer's. >> let me try to answer this with an analogy, if i could, justice kennedy. i think the right way to think about it is this -- if somebody thinks the secretary of defense is doing a great job, they can take out an ad in "the washington post," spend $500,000 on that ad saying -- the secretary of defense has done a great job. and -- and they would have an undoubted first amendment right to do that. no one could think that there's a content -- it's hard to imagine a content-neutral justification for prohibiting that speech. but if instead the person wanted to express their symbolic -- >> what if boeing does it? mean, you know -- >> i still think -- >> you think no problem? >> that would be an independent expression. but if, instead, somebody wanted to express symbolically their view that the secretary of defense has done a great job by giving the secretary of defense a maserati, nobody would think that there was a first amendment ground that could be -- that could be invoked. >> but we are talking here about --

here's what two other justices said. justices scalia and thomas.ffirmative action is unconstitutional unless to remedy something. so michigan is restating what they think it requires which is no affirmative action. justice kennedy didn't say that. chief justice roberts and ali at which time -- alito said it may be permissible, but it's a choice for each state. >> now, you mentioned justice sotomayor and her dissent. she wrote very personally about this. i'm only going to read part of what she said because we're going to talk more about this later. and race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way and that cannot be wished away. and we have the fuller -- the quote there, but what i wanted to ask you is, is there a place for that sentiment in supreme court jurisprudence? >> well, she's -- these are difficult cases. people bring their own life experience and perspective to them. there was a kind of honesty to her point of view. chief justice roberts took her on very directly. he wrote separately and he

justice was not involved.s is not a modern day conservative supreme court case. >> it was post-warren but pre-breyer. >> that doesn't matter. >> probably the biggest human rights organization is the council of europe. and runs the european convention of human rights. 47 states within it. the secretary general of that body has recently said that prison overcrowding is the biggest problem in europe at the moment. the faults are not necessarily in these cases. 30 states in particular. david -- i know i am a state court judge so in the if youstates, in 2010, took every case file at every federal court, every case file in every federal court excluding -- that means overcrowding cases. there were about 385,000 cases. if you took all those cases, 48 million. that is were criminal justice is taking place in the united states. there you have elected prosecutors, elected and reimported judges in fortis said -- in 47 states. that is a problem. can you do something about this? look at north carolina. judge who went on to

i just need justice. for him too. [ cheers and applause ] >> my name is juana and i'm here because of the anger and frustration and sadness of what i feel about the murder of alex nieto. you try to justify the color of fear. the color of fear that is rooted in racism. you don't understand. i don't think the san francisco police department understand how it feels to have to explain to young black and brown people that their very existence is a threat to young people. it's a threat to people that are not from here. that we have to feel that we have to look behind our backs that we have to live in paranoia in our community. i think it's a shame that alex nieto was treated. we understand the contradictions in our city, we are people who are working here and working class of color that are inconvenience to white people. i'm upset to see that the san francisco police department is trigger-happy. they shoot people later. i think it's crazy that we have to think about living in a war zone where we have to be worr

and both of these members the san francisco police department, remembers the officers for justice. and so, we will adjourn in their honor and honor of their family for many years of service and they will be greatly missed. and so without further adieu, could we call line item number one? >> line item one, general public comment, the public is welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, and the speakers shall address the remarks as a whole and the individual commissioners and cc personnel and on the police commission rules of order, the police or the occ personnel or the commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public. but may provide a brief response and the individual commissioners and police and occ personnel should refrain, however, from entering into any debates or discussions with the speakers during the public comment and you can limit your comment to three minutes. >> good evening. >> good evening, commissioners, chief, and director joyce

>> we're expecting a list of reforms from the department of justice.hey have been investigating the albuquerque police department now for more than a year and a half. and we're expecting to hear reforms regarding training, hiring officer, and how to deal with deescalation of police confrontations with suspects in particularly in dealing with the mentally ill. the city of albuquerque has been preparing for the announcements for quite a while. the police chief has asked for million dollars to fund the changes from the department of justice, including funding for extra training and the mayor's goal for having 100% of officers trained in crisis intervention. and tuesday they announced the hiring of a new deputy chief who has been assigned to oversee these changes. again, the doj has been looking at this police department since november of 2012, which would make it the longest federal probe of a police department in history. they are reviewing the fatalities that have taken place since 2010. they have met with members, and they are hoping today finally the

they are not signed off by all the justices the offering justice right. i agree with you. i think it should be there. >> here is another question. i'm trying to get through as many as i can. does true transparency require that justices records must be available online? isn't it too limiting to have access to some in a library somewhere? >> the answer that is yes. when i try to figure out where justices papers were, you saw how few of these archival materials are available online. a very small percentage. , you havere available to go to a research institution somewhere. >> that is a money issue. lee epstein has gone and had in with aotocopy digitize digital camera on a tripod and took pictures of the memos that whoks to the justices produce pate in deciding whether to grant the petition or not. she had someone take pictures of every page. they are on her website somewhere. the vibrant congress did not do that for us. now they are there. it is a great resource. >> 50 years from now the supreme court justices working with papers will be absurd. the people as they work through

i'm vice-chair of the youth justice committee. several year angela chan has consistently been an admirable ally to our committee and commission as a whole. she has devoted her time to attending youth justice committee meetings both this year and over the last -- over the past several years to hear our committee members' priorities. furthermore, she ha been an ally [speaker not understood] around improving youth relations and police training. she has been instrumental in helping us pass the m-o-u and s.f.p.d. we all heard so many thing for having us be heard. angela has been an outstanding ally not only to us but our peers. we strongly urge the rules committee to appoint commissioner chan. [speaker not understood] district 10, [speaker not understood] district 11, bernal heights youth and [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> after this speaker coming up is petra de jesus. [speaker not understood]. mohammed sheck. >>> hi, my name is vicky hatfield. i work for bernal heights neighborhood center and i am in full support of the reap

justice that ruth bader ginsburg cannot say when she is sitting and being asked as a sitting justice, are you making a political calculation when you decide to retire or not to retire. of course her answer is going to be i'm not making a political calculation. were she to say anything else, people would call for her head. clearly, she is thinking about this. she is the most savvy and i would say politically and ideologically savvy justice there is on the court on the left. so to think that this hasn't occurred to her or she's not lying awake thinking about this seems to me very, very silly. >> yeah, i think that makes sense. obviously people care a great deal about this because of the import of the decisions. and again, for folks who don't track the court super carefully, if she were -- if she or breyer were replaced with a conservative, it would have a tremendous tip in the balance. e.j., you spoke about john paul stevens when he retired. i want to read from some of that. you said "justice john paul stevens' retirement is an enormous loss for the country and particularly for progres

months for you to come back to the tender loin, maybe those of us in the hood can do a little street justice to make sure that it does not happen again, thank you. >> thank you, miss bryson, tom? >> my name is tom and i have been here before. and i don't have notes this time. and so, a little time so much corruption, but i will start with the police endietment and that is why i came here two weeks to speak when there was not a quorum, folks if you are not going to show up and do not tell monroe that you are going to be late and never show up and waste our precious time and it happened on march 18 and june fifth and those are the times that i have come here to speak, it is inconsiderate and it is rude, don't do it, i know who you are and i will not name you, i like you too much. okay. getting back to the police indictments from two weeks ago, i know that they have been superceded by the politician indictments since then, but the question is this was what is sfpd doing with regard of these officers and whereas the internal control? where was the occ action on these six officers? was it given t