and my favorite thing about watching justice alito on the bench is how often justice kennedy will jump in and ask an attorney, what is your answer to justice alito's question? so i think justice alito has been from president bush's perspective the one, the homerun, and, of course, replacing justice o'connor, a very pivotal vote for the future of this court. what is the roberts court after 10 years? to me it's almost too soon to say now with the two new justices how they will affect dynamics on the court because of the new justices as you all know makes a new court when we saw justice thomas come on the court a solid note that change the dynamics on the court. so i think in many ways it's too soon together a photo writing another book and was encouraged to do so by my publisher after five years, and decided not to because i think it's too soon. there's a snapshot you can take of the court in terms of fighters continues, -- five, 10 years. but i think that snapshot is being developed. it is not set yet in what was very interesting is going forward because as this court establishes itself

justice thomas: not really. i think that that -- you know -- you can debate that, but that is sort of a structural injunction. the remedy is something where you have set up a broad system rather than deal with the case before you. but i don't think that is accurate. mr. bond: ok, i stand corrected. how do you think brown impacted your life? you talked about these private schools, which are not touched by brown, that were opened you because of brown. justice thomas: oh, i think -- just sitting here. just the fact that we are here. think about it. to the extent that people have sentiments that were inconsistent with the constitution, that were somehow enforceable either by custom or by law, brown was one of the major pieces that begin the erosion of those customs and those attitudes. whether it is in parks or public facilities, whether it is public accommodations later on, but it changed. i was right there in the late 1960's as it was just beginning to change. it wasn't changed yet, but just think of something as

department of justice? how many attorneys are serving the whole country as part of the u.s. department of justice? >> as part of the entire department of justice there's over 100,000 professionals. >> out of 100,000 professionals, how many are working for the civil rights division roughly? >> just under about 700. >> about 700. i will agree with you and with the chairman, that the conduct of the prosecutors in the danziger bridge case was absolutely outrageous. conduct unbecoming, inappropriate, and there have been sanctions taken by the office of professional responsibility. but it is no more accurate to describe the entire department of justice or the entire civil rights division as being out of control or outrageous or engaged in misconduct than it is to incorrectly smear the entire law enforcement community nationally because of a few, isolated instances of misconduct. in fact, ms. gupta, i've been struck by the depth of your support from national law enforcement organizations. some of this was reported

i might just say roughly about a week ago i heard justice scalia say the justice he most admired was justice jackson, which is remarkable. they're not in the same camp. really is great -- anybody who is interested should read the jackson opinions for how well they can cut through legal ease and get to the hart of the issues. >> robert is in springfield, missouri. >> caller: yes, thank you. since the youngstown case, in what cases have the supreme court cited the three-tier approach form nated by justice jackson? >> thank you. we're going to talk about that a little more. >> i can't list them all. it's going to get cited a lot. this is part of what one might say is a particular key to the concurrence. the concurrence may not bind people to very much. that is to say the framework is there and what it allows is people to use their own judgment to determine what congress has said on this or not. and that may be a particularly significant aspect of this. it's unflunl but it doesn't con train much. >> i hope we'll talk about this. how we characterize that zone of twilight is going to chang

that is the story of justice kennedy and justice o'connor. they fail to provide in many cases, the key votes that would have started to turn the court back in a more conservative direction, and away from some of the excesses. still, other justices who did have strong conservative, philosophical views affected the court in unexpected ways. that is the story of justice thomas, who i believe is the most egregiously mischaracterized character probably in our generation. [applause] i have written about this a lot. it is very interesting because the story of justice thomas is one, as we all know, where he -- the narrative is he is a lackey of justice scalia. he is his understudy. he is inferior intellectually and that narrative is false. it is obvious, not only by reading his opinions, that it is in the papers. picking keythomas positions on his own and scalia later changing his vote to join thomas. one and i talk about this in speeches, depending on the audience, especially on the west coast, i will start to talk about justice thomas -- i think it

justice delayed is justice denied. every single person serving a day in prison who will get a recommendation is having their justice delayed and denied. >> on that note, the gentleman's time has expired. we will recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on february 2nd, 2014, chief counsel to irs commissioner john koskinen learned that ms. lois lerner's hard drive had crashed and they didn't have all of her e-mails. the irs waited until june of that year, june of 2014 to tell congress. in that time period, mr. koskinen testified twice and did not disclose that fact. one month later, in march of 2014, the irs destroys for her 22 backup tapes. just so you understand the fact pattern, they know on february 2nd, her hard drive has crashed, they don't have her e-mails, 30 days later they destroy 422 backup tapes with three preservation orders in place. in fact one of them came from the justice department. ten months before that, you had told them, hey, preserve all the documents, preserve al

oh, justice thomas: obviously. justice thomas: -- justice thomas: oh, obviously. mr. bond: i have read that you think brown is sort of a precursor of affirmative action. that it open the door. justice thomas: no, not really. i don't think i have ever said that. mr. bond: i'm not quoting you as having said that, but just that brown happened and then the enforcement of brown, or the carrying out of brown, open the racialr kind of -- of spoils system. justice thomas: not really. i think that that -- you know -- you can debate that, but that is sort of a structural injunction. wheremedy is something you have set up a broad system rather than deal with the case before you. but i don't think that is accurate. mr. bond: ok, i stand corrected. how do you think brown impacted your life? you talk about these private schools, which are not touched by brown, that were opened you because of brown. justice thomas: oh, i think -- just sitting here. just the fact that we are here. think about it. to the extent that people have sentiments that were inconsistent with the constitution,

the minority was chief justice vinson voted with justices stanley reed and sherman.e will return to another oral argument and this is from one of the other clerks, his name is george nieback. it is an exchange between justices jackson and clark in their decision. let's listen. >> after they announced the decision at that time, at that time clark sat on one side of jackson, probably on the left, and tom clark announced his concurrence and i do not remember if he wrote to the opinion or not. but jackson leaned over to truman and whispered, i'm glad you see you have decided to be a judge, tom. now jackson told me that. >> you reacted when you heard that. >> it was very interesting, yes. and of course jackson is talking about this from his own experience. he was attorney general under roosevelt during which time he made some arguments very similar to those he is about to reject in this case. same thing happened. with the korematsu case. and for jackson, it was very important to recognize the distinction between how he looked at the world, political appointee and how he l

in justice black's opinion. and they pointed out -- made two serious points. abtract deference is not the function of the you dish rare. it's upholding the contusion. and secondly this was decided simply on the basis of race. they made that point as justice murphy said, i dissent from this legalization of racism. and very soon after these decisions, within a year, one of the most noted law professors wrote in a yournl saying the korematsu case is a constitutional disaster. this is not something 40, 50 years later we're saying that was a mistake but they had their reasons for it. they had no reason at the time. >> it's on the screen so people can have the reference. first of all, the chief justice at the time was harlem stone. what was his particular persuasion? >> he was appointed by herbert hoover. he was a republican. but he wouldn't be a republican today because he was in fact one of the great chief justices we've had. >> tlaen were also a number of other names that have bm famous to people. you mentioned jus

also like to focus on the need for an impartial justice department. americans have mechanic more and more suspicious that their government agencies are biased. to understand this, one need look no further than the well-founded allegations that the irs targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny. after numerous appeals to appoint a special counsel to investigate this, last month the justice department announced that no criminal prosecution would be brought against irs personnel in connection with this matter. it's not difficult to understand why a special counsel was needed give than only those organizations opposed to the president's overreaching agenda were targeted by high-ranking irs officials. apparently officials at the irs share secretary clinton's abhorrent notion that republicans are "the enemy." i am profoundly disturbed by the administrations handling of this matter. at every turn president obama and administration officials repeatedly and publicly undermine the investigation. when the house of representatives took the responsible step o

justice william o douglas. justice felix frankfurter. there were three justices who dissented. scholarnstitutional agrees that these dissents completely obliterate the reasoning in the majority opinion. they may too serious points. deference to the executive is not the function of the courts, even in wartime. also, that this was decided simply on the basis of race. murphy said it was a legalization of racism. soon one of the most noted ,aw professors, eugene ross now wrote an article in the year law aurnal where he called it constitutional disaster. it wasn't just that we are saying it today. there was great criticism of it at the time. susan: i want to get some of this on the screen. timehief justice of the was harlan fiske stone. ." peter: he was appointed by herbert hoover. but he wouldn't be a republican today. you mentioned william douglas. ." and eight of the nine members of has been appointed by frank roosevelt. justices.the new deal fdr finally got his wish. these were people who owed institutional loyalty to the president. peter: in this particular case, during wartime

pledge to onlyk support programmable justice prorm candidates? -- criminal justice candidates?e lombardo: we support a candidate who was a different change.climate that makes that support a climate change denier, some hypothesis.the we support a lot of different candidates over the years and will continue to do that. there is somehink level of frustration with people getting things done. the support that we will do moving forward -- is a lot going to depend on their positions on the issues that i've laid out , they have very little to do with their support of some of these other issues. >> we have time for one more. position on means testing for certain government benefits? steve lombardo: we don't have one right now. that is something we have talked about, it is clearly something that i think the candidates will start talking about. i hope it will get into that. this is aese issues, fun election cycle and i think people are entertained, i opened some point it starts to migrate towards important issues. we don't have a position right now. thank you very much, i appreciate it. [

the integrity of the criminal justice system is at stake. plain and simple. >> this is the story of how, for years, the fbi used an untested forensic method in courtrooms across the country. and of the men who paid for it -- with decades of their lives. [crowd cheers.] >> in january 2015, joseph sledge walked out of prison for the first time in over 37 years. >> did you ever think this day was coming? >> oh yes, i did. yes, there wasn't no doubt. >> he moved back to his hometown of savannah, georgia. we met him one morning on the river, where he likes to go crabbing. >> if by chance we caught a crab, it'd be an act of god. >> aw cause, when we was coming up, that's all we did. our daddy took us on the dock, catching crabs. we had a good life coming up. we did, you know. yes we did. >> joseph's sister barbara also lives in savannah. >> that's him, mom and him. >> barbara was in her twenties when joseph went to prison. >> he didn't get a chance to see his daddy when he passed. you know, i had to write him and let him know daddy passed. had to

justice. in this context, it is extremely strikely there are no direct references in the report to military operations in which the al nusra front took part during the reporting period though there are several references to isis and the nonstate factors which by the way is a misnomer. this act of information unfortunately does not help an understanding of what is happening on the ground. we also reject the fact that -- they are using civilians of ethnic groups, minorities, as human shields. these actions must be em fatically rejected by the international community. this is an attempt on human dignity. it is high time that the actions are no longer sheltered under the umbrella of ka so called nonstate factors. we continue to condemn the practices of the so-called nonstate actors and isis of using basic services, such as basic services as weapons of war. we also re jject emphatically t destruction of the cultural heritage of syria affected by the totalitarian division of isis which wants to elim

department of justice? how many attorneys are serving the whole country as part of the u.s. department of justice? >> as part of the entire department of justice, there's over 100,000 professionals. >> out of 100,000 professionals, how many of them are working for the civil rights division roughly? >> just under about 700. >> about 700. i will agree with you and with the chairman that the conduct of the prosecutors in the dansinger bridge case was absolutely outrageous. conduct unbecoming. there have been sanctions by the office of professional responsibility. it is no more accurate than the describe the entire department of justice or the entire civil rights division as being out of control or outrageous than it is to incorrectly smear the entire law enforcement community nationally because of a few isolated consequences of misconduct. i've been struck by your depth of support for national law enforcement organizations. some of this was reported in usa today with the headline, "department of justice and po

justice delayed is justice denied.every single person serving a day in prison who will get a recommendation is having their justice delayed and denied. >> on that note, the gentleman's time has expired. we will recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on february 2nd, 2014, chief counsel to irs commissioner john costigan learned that ms. lois learner's hard drive had crashed and they didn't have all of her e-mails. l echllerner's hard drive had crashed. they didn't have all her e-mails. in the four-month time period, the commissioner did not disclose the fact that they knew her hard drive had crashed. one month later, in march of 2014, the irs destroys for her 22 backup ties. just so you understand the fact pattern, they know on february 2nd, her hard drive has crashed, they don't have her e-mails, they destroy 422 backup tapes with three preservation orders in place. in fact one of them came from the justice department. ten months before that, you had told them, hey, preserve all the

but he's the chief justice. he can do whatever he wants especially if he has the votes. >> thank you very much. [applause]

you mentioned justice douglas, justice frankfurter. frank murphy, robert jackson. overall the constitution of the , court was what at this time? peter: eight of the nine members of the court with the exception -- seven of the nine members, with the exception of justices jackson and justice stone had been appointed by fdr. they were the new deal justices when fdr threatened to pack the court back in the 1930's by adding new justices, he finally got his wish. he appointed a majority of the court. these were people who owed some kind of personal and institutional loyalty to the president. who owed some sort of loyalty to the court. in this particular case, during wartime, it is very hard for anybody, including a member of the supreme court, to say as long as the president is in the constitution, and what would be the locations of that -- implications of that. susan: the court said, yes. and the second question, should fred korematsu's conviction be upheld? the court said yes. in your book, you you noted it started out with the decrying of racism. how did it switch? pe

and perhaps that would be the story of justice o'connor and justice kennedy and failed to provide the key vote that would have started to turn back to a more conservative direction from the excesses' of the warren court and the justices you did have strong philosophical views in unexpected ways who i believe is the most egregiously mischaracterized figure probably in our generation. [applause] and i have written about -- about this a law in the book and it is interesting because it is where the narrative and is he is the intellectual under study inferior in that narrative is false and obvious not only by reading his opinion but in the papers of the library of congress you can see thomas taking key positions as he changes his vote to join justice thomas. when i talk about this in speeches especially on the west coast, to talk about justice thomas because it is an outrage the way it continues to be perceived in the press that when i start to tell the story nobody wants to hear it. that is the tremendous disservice to a man but also to my profession that is something that is outrageous b

we do so in the criminal justice system through the criminal justice apparatus. eventually there many things going on because eventually communities do suffer from the war on drugs, eventually violence increases, eventually people start to clamber for more police and prisons. it was very much a political and policy choice. it was a choice that was bipartisan and it was the choice that we chose in every moment in our history. this is important because as historians, we can see that that policy choice very much shaped the latter half of the 20th century and the beginnings of the 21st century. it caused enormous crisis in cities across the country, in poor rural areas across the country. it undermined the economy by making so many people permanently unemployable. it disturbed our democracy by taking away the right to vote for people who had been incarcerated, but also shifting roles so that people in prison could not use their vote. thatd made a policy choice had dire repercussions for the 20th century. historians, we are beginning to trace out exactly how responsib

the chief justice with edward wright, i will read the names of the other justices in addition to thene we talked about earlier, oliver wendell holmes. joseph mckenna, william day, james mcreynolds, louis brandeis, and john clark. the only other name that rings a bell with me is louis brandeis. was this a distinguished court? why do we not know much about the chief justice at the time? talk about that court. thomas: that court does decide a number of very important transitional questions in american law. we are still in a sense in the era you discussed in an earlier program, in which the supreme court is recognizing a broader set of rights, for example the liberty of contract, and is becoming more assertive. more willing to strike down laws congress has enacted. in terms of the personalities of the justices and who is really famous, it really is holmes and brandeis. the other members do not really stand out. it is because they have an evocative way of writing. shouting fire in a crowded theater, clear and present danger, those are really once that ring through history. that is part of

we do so in the criminal justice system through the criminal justice apparatus. eventually there many things going on because essentially communities do suffer from a world drugs eventually violence increases of people start at its origin is is very much a political and policy choice. it was a choice that was bipartisan. it was only chosen every moment in our history. this is important because his historians we can see that the policy choice for a much shape the entire latter half. beginnings of the 21st. because generous crises in cities across the country in poor rural areas across the country. undermine the economy by making only people permanently unemployable. distorted our very democracy by taking away the right to vote for people who have been formally incarcerated but also by shifting. and by doing all of this we -- it had direy repercussions for the 20th century. as historians are now beginning to trace out exactly how responsible changes are. in communities that are already fragile. one of the things that we know is that for example during made alcoholn

the chief justice was fred vincent. if you watched our series last week, you'll remember that fred vincent was a truman appointee and described as a truman crony. and he was joined on the court by justices hugo black, harold burton, robert jackson, sherman minton and stanley reed. so last week, we heard that vincent did not do an effective job at bringing coalitions together for very, very divided court. in 1952, was it still very, very divided? and was he having a difficult time bringing together two groups within the court that really didn't see eye to eye? >> well, i think that the basic problem with vincent is his colleagues were -- did not respect him very much. thus, he did not have the constitutional authority that was necessary to try to bring the justices together is what i would say. the division i think is most important to perhaps talk about is the rivalry between jackson and frankfurter on the one hand and hugo black and douglas on the other. and what that represented in terms of how the justices thought ab

justice jackson and justice frankfurter were concerned about how to justify the decision on overruling plessy. the fishers ons the court that become manifest in the first conference over brown. frankfurt,ues don't, vincent initial vote is something like four votes to strike down segregation. possibly.s stanley reed from kentucky. tom clark from texas. two, who seem undecided. frankfurter and jackson. they are in favor of judicial restraint and they do not like segregation. they are new deal democrats and they do not think the court should be stepping in. the initial vote is taken and it looks like segregation will win. all of a sudden, before the court can decide the case, he drops dead of a heart attack. on the way home from the funeral, he says to his colleagues, this is the first indication i have ever had that there is a god. court re-argues the case. attorney on the docket for our viewers, because there is a familiar name. john davis. who has been in three of our landmark cases. who was john davis and why was he at the home of so many important cases? >> he was the presidential ca

clerk tohe was a justice jackson.e talked about where we are in the story right now and at the lower level federal court hearing this story and the argument that harry truman's representatives made. let's listen. >> the government made extraordinary claims act the very beginning. the president had all of the authority that george the third had a less it was taken from him by the constitution. you can imagine the press outcry about this. it made headlines. aspect,ave a negative the government abandon their argument before it got to fix -- supreme court. it got the government on the wrong foot. >> ambivalence about the korean war at that point? >> very much so. people fighting and dying above very few sacrifices called on the home front. old, war ii, i am not that had 14 millionou people under arms. a lot of things group restricted on the home front. the korean war, you do not have those restrictions. a real ambivalence. with all of the legal counsel, how did the government get off to such a bad start in making the case

juvenile justice. i asked you about juvenile justice, prison reform and sentencing for reducing mass incarceration, the value of that. >> the time has expired but the witness can answer the question. >> i thank the chairman for his indulgence. >> with respect to sentencing reform we feel it's a vital measure that recognizes that while we put measures in place several years ago designed to protect the american people, as we look back on those measures, we see the collateral consequences that it did not just to citizens, but to communities. we also are able to evaluate with the passage of time whether or not those lengthy sentences were the most effective way to deal with the offenders that they tended to sweep up. so certainly as part of an overall review of our criminal justice system to make sure it is always as efficient and fair as possible, sentencing reform has an important role to play in that and the department is supportive not just of the committee's efforts but congress' efforts in that regar

department of justice, which is, of course, violence, be it gun violence or any type of violence, in our cities as it affects our children, not only those who are the actual victims, but children who are exposed to violence, of course, suffer greatly as we know in their later development as well. we feel that the city of chicago is certainly taking a concerted look at this problem. and i'm extremely proud to note that the federal government through the u.s. attorney's office in chicago is working very closely with local law enforcement on this issue, focusing on the issue of not just firearms but also the gang violence in chicago as well. we also have a very strong presence with our federal agencies, fbi as well as atf, who works closely with the chicago police department on the e-trace program that you mentioned. we do find it to be a very useful program. we do find it to be something that arms us with the data to trace the source of weapons into neighborhoods who suffer so grievously from them. and certainly it's an example that certainly we would hope could be exported to other ci

of a justice kennedy has.we are at every major decision about the equal rights, and we knew that we had to persuade him. we knew that we had no chance of winning the case if we could persuade him and so one of the things i did to prepare -- the justices if you listen to the argument that they will say to each other as justice kennedy said or asked justice kennedy has earlier written when he knew i couldn't say that. it looked a little too obvious for me to say that but one of the things we did instead is we took at that point the prior decisions and at that point it towards it was grown her and laura did we put them on kind of a cheap sheet piece of paper and i walked through for a couple of days kind of saying them out loud. i'm sure that i will catch a crazy person doing that for the reason i did it if i wanted to have his language on the tip of my tongue so that during the argument if i needed to use it i could say it without saying as justice kennedy said. that was a point in the argument i used the langua

deborah douglas white the chief justice ship. that she felt the court had deteriorated under roosevelt so he wanted to point conservatives. that's what he did. towards and some of were appointed in 1911 under tab. caps on a huge influence on american constitutional law. there were several justices roosevelt of wanted. head rheumatism and had to retire area have to not appointed his replacement. history of the court might've been very different tonight in 20 minutes of the 1930's area shows you how health the constitution of the court and change by these actions. cap was very proud. a little more candid than modern president. >> i understand nelly was very a set when he wanted the district judge. was she happy that he finally >> yes.r judge? the conventional wisdom is that nelly wanted to be the first lady in the know was a reluctant candidate. but if you look at the situation forwards options? he could go on the supreme court as an associate justice that was not very socially acceptable. it was nice but it was not the position sh

in terms of reform of the criminal justice system. i think suggestions of body cameras on police are ideal. i think it's crucial that police and prosecutors who are conducting a lineup or a photo id, they should not know who the suspect is. because if they know who the suspect is, they're going to nudge and push the witness and direct them toward that individual. so we need to have blind photo id's which are much less in my view subject to manipulation. the suggestion that we have open files. we should move in the direction of prosecutorial open files and i think the idea of videotaping and interrogations is something that should be discussed as well. i don't think these are constitutional values but they're the kind of values that ought to be brought up in the states and discussed among individual trial judges and they're the kind of things that may lead to some useful reforms. once we see how they work out. in different jurisdictions. i don't want to constitutionalize them too much. but i want there to be dialogue and experimentatio

an all-out effort to force change in the criminal justice system. a key part reducing the sentences that many consider excessive for minor drug crimes. much identified is in need of change, places like this, the streets of the nation's capital city with what became known as america's drug laws. >> if you remember dc in the early 1990s, it may help you underwhat happened to rudolph norris. they were high times, cocaine and crack so easy to get, it seemed like everyone was using. even the mayor. at guy like rudy norris could life. angel. >> i was not an angel. i was far from angel. >> you were this the light. >> cost me 27 years of my life. >> he was caught with an ounce of crack. half a candy bar's worth, a relatively minor drug offense. >> you weren't armed. >> no, i wasn't armed. >> you didn't hurt anybody. >> i didn't hurt anyone. >> but you went to prison. >> i went to prison. >> what was the sentence. >> 360 sentence. >> in prison he was his own advocate, learning the system. >> that was my pastime. no basketball, none of that. i stayed in the l

represent the very best of our criminal justice system. treatment andof the very best of veterans affairs. you are transforming the courtroom. you are transforming our communities and transforming this great nation. the most exciting part of this conference will be seeing all of you share your ideas and make lasting connections. valor is not limited to the battlefield. valor means it showing courage in the face of adversity. courts areeatment defined by valor. to fight toor implement a veterans treatment court. to transform the way veterans in the justice system are handled in this country. it takes valor to continue to serve your nation by volunteering as a mentor to your brothers and sisters who are struggling at home. and of course, the incredible .raduates show valor every day by accepting the help being offered in doing the difficult work of facing their demons head-on with strength and dignity. they are heroes in every sense of the word. and so are all of you. veterans fought for our freedom. thank you all for fighting for iers. on m

your job as an advocate is to help the justices on your side kind of argue with the justices on the otherside pretty much their minds are made up when they come up. it's very rare that you are going to persuade someone at an argument. so it's really this kind of almost diplomacy that you're doing where you are trying to help the judges on one side, the justices on the other and help the justice on the other hand there's almost no time for the kind of high-level intellectual discussion. a lot of it is about political issues. i think if you go back and look at the transcripts, not a single case was raised in the arguments other than by me. to ask the questions on any of the cases it is a very different animal. >> host: you talk about moot court claim before the panel of lawyers appearing to be justices and they can bury you with questions and you attended that you you are in a moment and you write how the first one didn't go so well. talk about that. one lawyer told afterwards that you needed to be gay in the case. talk about that and how backwards and for your preparation. >> guest: i thin

it's not against justice.hina believe stability protect people. >> well, the us would say that they're not against justice, either. they are against independent justice. >> that's the problem. us like justice when, when security council or us decide where to go. they don't like independent procedure to deciding to open investigation without their consent. >> do you think it'll change? >> with time, i hope before everyone is killed in this country, in this world. (laugh) yeah, i hope will change. yeah. but depend on us. depend on people. it's changing. it's changing. the funny thing, when you see surveys about icc, there's global support. even in china. so everywhere. but the political leader have to adjust. the problem is, u. s. is the biggest country in the world. they don't like some, something checking them. (laughter) that's it. >> this awful thing that has happened in kunduz with the hospital, the doctors without borders hospital being bombed. is that a war crime? >> look, i believe that will depend on th

what do think it means to find justice for jamar clark? >> get the justice and peace they deserve.hat we really need to do is reach out to our communities, our militant-enriched communities. amy: i want to turn to the communications of the naacp, suggesting members of law-enforcement were behind the shooting of the black lives matter protesters monday night. >> we know the police department is behind this. this is our personal belief after we have received witnesses accounts, he personally being on the ground, minneapolis police department union had -- >> i have to interrupt you, i know there is a delay but you say you believe the police department is behind what? what's we believe the police department is this a locating to the protesters and we also believe there are involved in this shooting. we know from blackboards and chat rooms and also videos that we have posted on our website that police from different districts have come down to entice the protesters, have come down -- >> i understand your in minneapolis and you know much more about this, but those are serious allegations

on target - justice for all. meet the court-appointed lawyers who made it their mission to expose crooked cops and prosecutors. and the critics that say it has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with politics. anyone like me watches a lot of cop shows can revit the miranda warning na police officers must read to suspects. you have the right to remain silent. anything you can and say will be used against you in a court of law, you have the right to an attorney yoi, if you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. it's the last line that i want to talk to you with, the public defender for those that can't afford a lawyer. it starts with clarence gideon, a drifter arrested in 1961. he was charged with breaking into a pool hall and stealing. he was sentenced to five years in prison. a man with an 8th grade education appealed. he argued his right to council was violated. the supreme court ruled in his favour in gideon versus wainwright, in 1963. the reason all today have the right to an att

i wanted to ask about a justice -- a law clerk of justice jackson by the name of william rehnquist who, at his confirmation in 1971, the issue came up that he had written a dissent for justice jackson in the brown case when it came before the war and -- for the court, and he said that they were just covering their bets and he did not really feel that way. i just wondered if either of your guests have checked to see the veracity of justice rehnquist's comments. jeffrey: you summarize it very well. it was an important controversy. then memo was quite vivid. he said basically that the fact , is that southerners don't like black people and will never admit them and the truth is, i believe that plessy versus was good law. jackson had asked him to express his own thoughts because jackson was undecided. all we know is that justice jackson's secretary disputed rehnquist's account said that he had never asked for competing opinions to be written in his voice and, according to her, rehnquist was expressing his own views. i think that is the most direct evidence. susan: maurice is in memphis. >>

justices.e have a distinguished panel with us today and we will hear from each panelist. the panelists will then exchange questions and then i will take questions from the audience. first we have steven duffield, graduate of the university of chicago law school asked even as vice president for policy at crossroads a gps, and president of the endgame strategies here in washington. stephen worked for senator john, on the senate republican policy committee during the day in judge roberts nomination and confirmation. stephen is going to discuss the expectations regarding judge roberts role as chief justice at the time was confirmed in 2005. next we have jan crawford is the chief legal correspondent for cbs news, and also a graduate of the university of chicago law school. she covers the supreme court regularly and publish a book in 2007 and titled supreme court conflict, the inside story of the struggle for control of the united states supreme court. she is going to speak about how justice roberts

justice delayed is justice denied.single one of those people serving a day in prison who will get a recommendation is having their justice delayed and denied. on that note, the gentleman time has expired. >> will recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> thank you. on february 2, 2014, he learned that the hard drive had crashed and they didn't have all the email. they waited until june of that year until then to tell congress be at in that four-month time. until they learned her hard drive had crashed and they didn't have all of her e-mail in june when they discovered it, they testified twice in front of congress and did not disclose the fact that they knew her hard drive had crashed. one month later after they learn the hard drive had crashed, crashed, in march 2014, march 4, 2014, the irs destroyed 422 backed up tapes. just so you understand the facts, they know in february 2 that the hard drive is crashed and they don't have all her e-mail. thirty days later they destroyed 422 backup tapes. they destroy thos

in this program, a series of heents examine how became chief justice. the kansas city public library hosted this event. >> a special treat to have uld whourn of lewis go was one of the great american historians and one of the greatest american presidential historians. i first got to know him through his books when i was an undergraduate at gail writing my senior essay on -- senior at yale writing my senior essay. since then, he has written books on, may be best book on the united states senate, may be further -- maybe for the republican party. president taft, roosevelt, mckinley. he's written the history of wyoming, the written history of the first lady. she is an extraordinary historian. on the back quotes modern american presidency which might be the one book you ought to have on the presidency. . original,st and most steve neal, compelling analysis , robert who is also been here, where achievements -- rare achievements, a pleasure, strong and provocative. highly readable, refreshing, required reading. and last but not leaving, as i introduce our fred