chief justice warren, justice brennan, justice hugo black, justice hugo douglas, they had dissented back in the 40's. they believed there was a 14 commitment issue that the courts needed to consider. william brennan and earl warren joined into an end. they suggested the federal courts should get involved. felix frankfurter most passionately dissented and was joined by john marshall harlan and tom clark. there was no great surprise there. when the drama really begins. the next in line was would occur led been appointed to the court -- which occur. been a prominent figure in kansas city but was very much a regional attorney. he had been put on the district court and the appeals court and the supreme court rapidly. he was someone who from the beginning struggle to keep up with the pace and had a lot of self-doubt about his own ability to contribute. charles evans whittaker was torn. during the argument, he had expressed that he had a great deal of sympathy for the tennessee petitioners and gave a lot of hope to the people on the case. he expressed the same conference and suggested that he t

the justices explode, especially justice douglas. he writes a scathing dissent that he wants to issue before the end of the term condemning burger for allowing the manipulation of the court. he holds that dissent, but it sneaks into the press and is on the front pages of the washington post on the fourth of july weekend and gets on the front page of the new york times the next day, which raises tensions that it will be re-argued and it was re-argued in 1972. host: we should also note that there was a presidential election going on. the court always envisions itself as being distant from the political process, but in case after case in this series, we have learned that there are political influences that find their way into the court and the proceedings. melissa: the election as the backdrop against which the court is doing all of this. nixon is an interesting figure because he actually is in favor of liberalizing abortion at one point in his career. but as he takes on the much more liberal mcgovern, he begins to play up his only name

here is justice blackmun. blackmun: i think at the conference after the first sendent, the chief justice the sensitiveness of the argument and of the issue and probably referred not to assign it to himself as he could have. there were personal reasons also, for family reasons, i think. he would go to douglas. he wouldhink misunderstand this comment on my part. he was in of the waning years of his service. as well as heting did in prior year s. he treated the case rather puromptly.pt >> do you think he wanted to write it? justice blackmun: i don't think you did, but i think he was firm. firm in his view. i think it would have been ttleeand a litl unfair. melissa: i think it is great is it about the different personalities. he really wanted to write this opinion. he had deeply invested after the first oral argument. he spent time writing an initial draft when there was a motion for the argument. after all ofat that investment, he would not be the one to write the opinion and that it would be given to another jus

if the chief justice is not in the majority, then the senior most justice does at signment. there is a lot of politics in that. and justice brannan was one of the younger members of the court. left experienced members of the court. and but part of that was, as doug was saying, chief justice warren wanted the opinion to be written very carefully, very narrowly so he could hold the majority. >> so now let the only 30 minutes mark so we'll have to move through a lot of big things here. but why were there only eight votes in. >> there are only eight votes because charles whitaker, who had a lot of difficulty the first time around, continued to have difficulty with the case. he said in a conference he wrote two opinions, arguing both sides of the case. and decided to vote with frankfurter. so the case was 5-4. douglas was eager to get the decision down in february but the chief justice and brannan and clark went off to a conference for ten days. while they were away frankfurter asked come clark to write a dissenting opinion on remedies available it tennessee. tom clark, after he

after the justices voted that conference to admit women to the college, the most senior justice and the majority, or the chief justice if he is in the majority gets to aside the opinion. to anyone who agrees with the majority, that's how it works. he assigned it to the woman, sandra day o'connor but she would not take it. she knew who had labored at the supreme court lawyer at the supreme court for the american civil civil liberties union from 1971 until 1980 to get the court to call women equal. this should be ruth she said. on decision day, justices do not read their entire opinion, which can often run through scores of pages. that morning, ginsburg chose to include in her summary reading a reference to justice o'connor's 1982 decision, and hogan versus mississippi. o'connor opinion from 15 years before was a closely divided court and ginsburg relet minded her listeners had they done the rule that states may not close entrance dates based on six notion concerning the roles and ability of males and females. then ginsburg, the legendary on demonstrative justice lifted her eyes from her

justice scalia dissented. scilly accused the court of signing on to what he called the homosexual agenda. he fumed that the court had no business in validating legislation that had been approved by the people of texas. religious conservatives were livid. pat robertson denounced the court for rending the fourth moral fabric of the nation. when it came time for justice kennedy to announce the judgment he read a brief statement explaining the result from the bench. the spring court chamber was packed. at the end he said bowers was it was decidedn and is not correct today. bowers is overruled. it was a remarkable moment. overwhelmed by what was happening, many of the gay and lesbian advocates openly solved. for the gay and lesbian community it was occasion for dancing in the streets. erected in cities across the nation. lawrence meant that never again be dismissedghts as facetious. never again would they have to wonder whether equal justice under law included them. the constitution was now their constitution to. a

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 antonin scalia, joined by chief justice rehnquist and justice thomas, was of a rather different view. [laughter] scalia maintained that amendment two is not the manifestation of a, quote, bare desire to harm homosexuals but is, rather, a rational and perfectly legitimate attempt by colorado cans to preserve sexual mores. he castigated justice kennedy's reasoning as clearly inconsistent with court's precedent in bowers v. hardwick. the supreme court's third decision regarding the rights of homosexuals, lawrence v. texas, was pretty much a rerun of bowers. police officers were dispatched to a residence in response to a reported disturbance. after they entered the residence, they saw two men engaging in anal sex. the men were arrested, charged and convicted of violationing a texas statute making it a crime for a student to engage in intercourse with another person of the same sex. since 1982 bowers very hardwick had been used to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians in deportation proceedings, adoption proceedings, military discharges, employment discrimination and a hos

it must include a presence of justice.and until i started working on this project, i think justice to me was always a process. so i have to expand that definition to justice for the survivors and victims as well and that's starting from the moment the victim makes the call to the moment the offender is prosecuted and held accountable. and so i want to thank you for the education you have given me. it is now my responsibility to make sure we share this with the field and together i think we can make sure that this is something that will make the defining moment as the attorney general said, this is one of her priorities, so i'm really excited about today. i want to thank you for all the work you have done and most importantly the work you're about to do. thank you guys. [ applause ] >> thank you. and now i am very pleased to introduce the next panel who will come to talk about how we're going to effectively implement the principles in this guidance. i would like to ask the panelists to walk on up. i want to say these paneli

justice ginsburg sees the connection. she has a statue of the greatest first lady and supreme court chambers and to respond to an interviewer's questions about women should get -- in a state criminal justice she invoked eleanor roosevelt wise advice. what those words revealed to me is the steely determination to rbg's successful career and a book about her having such a big impact especially on women. you have terminal when she entered harvard law school in 1956 he was one of just nine in a class of 500 and it surely one of the low points in our history being asked of those women why they thought they were right to take the place is that men have had. the enthusiasm for justice ginsburg takes many imaginative forms. the people are setting her some cream cord dissents music and making them into videos are routinely go viral. her image usually wearing a gold crown shows up everywhere from cartoons to t-shirts to tattoos great speaking of rbg crowns and tattoos fade rosenfeld has arranged for many of you in the audience to g

[laughter] it's interesting because justice scalia does something that justices do not do. i think the condescension is part of that, just in over devout opinion what the gay marriage opinion when he said justice kennedy was a bad writer an idiot, i don't think the supreme court that justices have egos, i think it is going to favorably worry justice in the future. i know justice ginsburg hopes that it some people are relatable. i think she has marginalized herself on the court that language. >> can you go to the microphone so everyone can hear you. >> well, we will wait. >> i may buy your book if, if i can have some sense of how the justices determined which cases to take each year? >> that the high say cancer. >> and what role does ruth bader ginsburg plan the decision making? >> well i don't know if i'm extremely qualified to answer that question is an ex- recent graduate of law school and out-of-court watcher. they get way too many cases for them to possibly take. it is really about figuring out what the most important ones are. most of the cases they take are not hot bu

it must include a presence of justice.and until i started working on this project, i think justice to me was always a process. so i have to expand that definition to justice for the survivors and victims as well and that's starting from the moment the victim makes the call to the moment the offender is prosecuted and held accountable. and so i want to thank you for the education you have given me. it is now my responsibility to make sure we share this with the field and together i think we can make sure that this is something that will make the defining moment as the attorney general said, this is one of her priorities, so i'm really excited about today. i want to thank you for all the work you have done and most importantly the work you're about to do. thank you guys. [ applause ] >> thank you. and now i am very pleased to introduce the next panel who will come to talk about how we're going to effectively implement the principles in this guidance. i would like to ask the panelists to walk on up. i want to say these paneli

chief justice. may it please the court, fortunately or unfortunately in this case, there are many fact that is are not in dispute. addressing justice kennedy's questions, the state does not dispute that the ind pep dent redistricting commission did draw equal sides of population. all sides say they were not random or incidental. this pattern to underpop ulaula minority districts was doeb to help create further eighty to elect districts. and we also know they did it intentionally. so why are they here today? in the background, this court has always held that equal protection is not a criteria under the factor when it comes to redistricting. but it is, certainly, the background which all redistricting ledgers take place. the statement of arizona, the secretary, do not dispute the compliance with voting rights act was a legitimate or illegitimate state interest. and we don't dispute that maybe there was a good motive on the part of drying these districts. the problem is those mote ifrs don't matter wha

this chief justice wrote terry v. ohio, one of the most pro law enforcement decisions ever written which says the cops are allowed to stop you and pat you down on reasonable suspicion without a warrant. but warren did care about human dignity. he was troubled when he wrote the spano case that the guy that ended up killing someone may have been acting in self defense but according to the state rules , at the time was liable for a big prison sentence. so he didn't think the totality of the circumstances test was protective enough at a time when he was troubled by police violence. he understand the third degree and understand what was going on in the south. so far from being an aclu guy who wants to stop interrogations by requiring a lawyer at all times, i think he's trying to come up with a compromise to restrain the police when he thinks it's necessary. host: braxton is up next from long beach, california. caller: my question is, miranda rights brought into play. the question was, when was htswhat were the fbi's rig an

if they don't get restored we really don't have the justice-sense of what happened during that period of american history and that would be in fact the injustice, but we also do restorative justice in another more practical sense in that gatherings like the one that you saw on the video or other kind of family gatherings or marking of grave stones or changing death certified to indicate people were murdered and that it wasn't an accident, things like that are also measures of restorative justice that we take pride in fostering. mr. dunn, law student, what drew you to this project? >> well i think it provided an opportunity for me to understand the injustishes that are happening today. you can look back and say well it was a lot worse back then but to really understand where it originated from all of the way down to the micro lev, the local level of police to the macro level of governors it is all a collective effort and this clinic provides an opportunity to really understand that. >> well tell us a little bit of what you are working on now? what is your project, or is it one project

justice -- chief justice roberts: mr.ein. justice sotomayor: alito wants to rely on. let me finish my point. he's right. for their educational needs, there are competing criteria. they need to keep a certain sat, or whatever that's called, ai index, that has to be high because of the quality they want to keep the school at. that does discriminate against blacks on some levels, because the difference in numbers are high. so if you have something like this, you're what you're saying, basically, is, and what he's proposing, is change your educational needs across the board, and focus in only on race, and make sure that your school is black, hispanic, or whatever on numbers that are going to reduce its educational quality. that's basically what you're arguing, isn't it? rein: no. and and to be fair, i mean, the first thing i was just pointing out is that to get to the conclusion of the fifth circuit, you have to first assume the pattern of admits in the top ten, where they come from, which was never established in the record,

now the justices, think the chief has five. it's not hard. if you take this person and you take that one and we will keep grinding them out as much as we live. my theme in the book is that i've constitutional dialogue. it takes place between the court and other branches of government. it's a dialogue that takes place between the justices and the members of the current court. let me close with the fearsome ruth bader ginsburg. my experience teaches there's nothing better than an impressive dissent to be the author of the majority opinion to clarify her initial circulation. in illustration, virginia military is a case decided by the court in 1996 to the denial of admissions to women violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. the final draft released to the public was so much better -- i'll go okay. it makes it hard to read that way but we will do the best we can. anyway the final draft released to the public was ever so much better that my first come, second and at least a dozen more drafts thanks to justice scalia's attention grabb

justice ginsburg sees the connection. she has a statute of the nation's greatest first lady and her supreme court chamber in response to an editor's question about whether women should get angry in the face of injustice she invokes eleanor roosevelt's wife's advice. anger, resentment, envy, these are emotions that just zap your energy. they are not productive and don't take any place, so get over it. what those words revealed to me is the steely determination, the reason a book about is having such a big impact, especially on women. we have to remember when she entered harvard law school in 1956 she was one of just nine women in a class of 500. and what is surely one of the low points in our history the school being asked of those women why they thought they were right to take the places that men should have had. enthusiasm for justice ginsburg takes many wonderful, imaginative forms. people are sending her supreme court dissents into media. our image usually wearing a gold crown shows that everywhere from cartoons to t-s

>> talking about justice. people say this is not justice. justice. you are saying this is part of the justice process. >> people saying this is not justice don't understand how the system works. sometimes there are guilty verdicts and sometimes there are not guilty verdicts and sometimes there are temporary hung juries where no verdict can be reached in the case and the case is normally tried again. this is a temp rare bump on the road to justice. it happens. part of how the system works. >> some are saying they are angry. >> no one should -- look, if the family is not angry no one else should be angry. i think the family has a bigger stake than almost anybody else. and the family wants everyone to remain calm. they want everyone to understand what just happened and to make sure the tempers don't get the best of them and the emotions remain in check. this is a very important stage in the case. the fact a hard-working jury couldn't reach a verdict says nothing whether a verdict can be reached in a second trial nor does it say anything about whether a

rehnquist is chief justice. she has been basically in the minority through the most of the big cases of her tenure all that, you know, there have been some when's. the united states versus newt gingrich is perhaps her best-known that she wrote herself. >> that's one of her favorites because it actually gave her the chance to pick her own cases. because it was aa combination of the work that she had done at the aclu. in that case involved a virginia military institute which was at that time a male only military public institution. and the case was actually brought by the united states but she was proud of the fact that the federal government had come around, but on behalf of women who wanted to attend the virginia military institute. she wrote this opinion that solidified the fact that women could not be treated on equally under law. >> the vmi case is certainly a very personal landmark for her. what else would you say she is proud of the cases she has been involved in? >> very proud of the ledbetter case. this i

justice harry blackmon dissents. although the values that describe intimacy for hundreds if not thousand of years, blackmon insisted that fact alone could not provide adequate justification to the georgia law. that certain religious groups condemned behavior an issue, he reasoned. gives the state no license to impose their judgments on the entire citizenry. to the contrary, the legitimacy of secular legislation he said depends on whether the state can advance some justification for its law beyond its conformity to religious doctrine. finding no such justification, blackmon concluded that the georgia statute could not be reck nionciled the u.s. institu. that was a dissenting opinion. the courts invocation of moral and religious prescriptions against homosexuality played a central role in the justice's reasoning in bowers and it's therefore useful to have some understanding of that history. so, let's take a look at the ancient roots justice white envoe invoked. the prechristian world thought of sex as a positive part o

another justice, justice stewart, wrote a memorandum. saying this is horrible, this is unconstitutional. a 5-4 case. susan: there is still controversy among the constructionists about what the court did in this. that will be our final half-hour. before we get to that, dollree map, has a major victory in the supreme court. what happens after that? victory.es have a it was short-lived. she moved to the state of new york in 1968. cambridge heights, where she purchased a home. she was already interested in furniture. she was running a furniture store, hired a young man named alan lyons to manage it. one day a confidential informant said she was selling narcotics. the police engaged in surveillance of her home for a number of days. surveillance of lyons. thisgot a search warrant time. they searched both her home and his apartment. iny found some narcotics lyons' home. they arrested both of them because mapp was connected to the apartment because he was helping pay the rent. they were released the next day. several weeks later, another confide

[applause] justice stras: thank you for that kind introduction.s you heard, my name is david stras and i'm currently a member of the minnesota supreme court and i taught among other classes, criminal law to first-year law students. this is a longtime interest of mine. i have been asked to moderate the panel which is timely in light of recent developments. the current administration is pushing a criminal justice reform agenda that includes greater cooperation among law enforcement agencies, reforms related to substance abuse and changes in community policing. as you heard last night at the dinner from the panel of governors, criminal justice reform is an important issue at the state level. there seems to be a timely debate going on about whether criminal justice reforms are better implemented at the state level and local level or whether a top-down approach is needed. our panelists are experts in the field of law enforcement and community relation, crime policy and recent developments in the criminal justice field. we intend to cover what type of r

why is what happened here not justice? the call was for justice in this case.it was tested before a jury of 12. it failed from the standard for a unanimous verdict in either direction. why is that not justice? or is it just sis? >> the mistrial today? brad: yes, sir. >> all the mistrial means ultimately that the jury was not swayed by the arguments that the state made toward porter and we can ultimately get another trial. that is what a mistrial is. but i think they need to focus on the institutional changes. brad: should people react calmly to this? you are protesting and you are calm. ref having a nice conversation. >> i'm a person who supports people who want to demonstrate. people should be mad and allowed to express politically whatever they want to. but ultimately i think that we need to know kiss on the long-term changes that -- focus on the long-term changes to make sure police are accountable in baltimore and maryland. brad: thank you. we'll step away and show you our group. spin around, 180 degrees if you would. look down street. way down the street.

a bit of chief justice earl warren's opinion. the outset, if a person in custody is subjected to interrogation, he must first be and unequvivalor terms that he has the right to silent." what are you hearing there? paul: one of the things i think isstrange about the decision there are 50 pages of text and only until the last two pages do get to specifically discussion about the facts of the case. said of commentators have it reads like a legislative attached statute and so there's a truly decisionve feel to the that is at odds with what most today looksions like. jeffrey: i think it was true to the spirit of the fifth and sixth amendment and not think it was radical but agree it does legislative quality, warren says at the beginning, middle and end, this is what the these are to repeat, the rules we want the cops to read and the fact that they seem to be taken from the f.b.i. and other sources but hadn't previously been part of broadcriminal law on a scale led to fierce criticism that it was, indeed, legislative, and set off a fir

on may 19, 1921, chief justice white died. harding dithered. finally on june 21, he told a reporter tell the big chief that i will put this over on the first of july. harding nominated taft on june 30, 1921. the administration hoped the nomination would go through the senate without debate but it was not to be. there were no formal hearings on taft's nomination. in those days, the senate deferred to what the president had done. instead, the senate dealt with the nomination in an executive session at the insistence of such progressive senators as robert mcculloch. bora was later known in washington as aurora bora alice. he said in the senate, you are taking a man who has spent his life in politics and putting them at the head of the greatest judicial tribunal in the world. after the dissidents have had their say, the senate approved. taft loved being chief justice. by 1925, he told friends he had forgotten he ever was president. the man and the job had found each other. taft had come out of the presidency a rejected an repudiated figure in the p

if you listen to the argument they will say to each other as justice kennedy said or as justice kennedyhas earlier written, we knew i could not say that and it looked a bit too obvious for me to say that. one of the things we did instead was took at that point justice kennedy's great language from his two prior decisions and at that point it was romer and lawrence and put them on kind of a cheat seat-- cheat sheet and i walk through the streets of dc for a couple of days same them out loud and i'm sure it looked like a crazy person, but the reason i did it is i wanted to have this language on the tip of my tongue so that during the argument, if i needed to use it i could say without saying as justice kennedy said, so we had a bet on our team as to whether or not i would succeed. i did actually. there was a point where he's been time is blind and every single one of the justices knew exactly what i was doing and i could see it in their eyes when i set a. but, i still have not collected on that bet. i will have to do that. >> host: the morning of arguments, solicitor general's spoke befor

our nation was founded on the values of liberty justice and equality justice scalia is distressing comments are a reminder we must remain diligent as an opportunity for all americans. it is not the right thing but the american way. linden johnson said collected is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity all citizens must have the ability to walk to the gates. it is our responsibility to open the gates to all americans decided what the justice said yesterday. >> [inaudible conversations] good afternoon. i do not have anything at the top we can go straight to questions. >> senator harry reid said the justice clea and donald trump based on the comments he made from the bench and those ideas endorsed the differences that justice scalia has a role bendel lifetime appointment as the white house agree? >> i will just say yesterday about the comments of the justice scalia obviously the sentiment he expresses is not something anybody who has heard the public comments of senator and now president obama would detect a difference. for our position on this case i refer to the filing from the de

we begin with former justice justice souter and sotomayor on the good-faith exception.istake which leads us to conclude that there has been a fourth amendment violation was a mistake not made by the police, but made by the judge or magistrate who issued the warrant, that should not preclude the introduction of evidence on the theory described in mapp vs. ohio. if the mistake is not the police's mistake, you gain nothing in influencing police conduct by keeping the evidence. >> what doctrine is that you don't want the police violating your constitutional rights without a good-faith basis, without probable cause. that is why you have a judge make that determination. was i have to look at whether we should make the police responsible for what would have otherwise been a judge's error, not theirs. they gave everything they had to the judge. and they said to the judge, i don't know, even if they thought they knew. that is not what commands the warrant. it is the judges review. host: interesting these were coming up as questions this late following mapp, both at the supreme c

it's not against justice. china 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

chief justice. >> thank you, general. >> mr. gershengorn. >> mr. chief justice. may it please the court. redistricting on the basis of total population as texas did here vindicates the principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people that is at the heart of reynolds and westbury. we thus agree that texas was not required to redistrict on the basis of some as yet undefined measure of voter population. however, we disagree that the court should go on to decide that texas is free in the future to redistrict on the basis of some measure of voter population if it so chooses. there are, in our view, at least four reasons why voter population cannot be required. first is the one mentioned by justice kagan. we think it would be an odd interpretation to say that the constitution forbids for state legislative redistricting what it requires for congressional redistricting. second is the very long history of states redistricting on a basis other than -- other than voter population. at the time of the framing of the 14th amendment there were the vast majority of

justice black 100%.hat the fifth amendment, sixth amendment, every other part of our constitution applies to everyone, poor, rich, ignorant, intellectual, what have you. there is no possible basis for differentiation. i don't argue that. i don't think any prosecutor argues it. miranda, i think characteristically by the petitioner is portrayed in this light inform an attempt to make something that isn't there. >> jeff rosen, what did you hear there? >> he is not arguing that the confession is compelled by gunpoint. flynn is not claiming that. so we're not talking about the third degree. squarely, both lawyers are struggling to use both the sixth amendment, which the court has already said applies during interrogation, and also the fifth amendment. they're also trying to come up with an alternative to the standard that the court already uses called a totality of the circumstances test. in a case called spano from 1959 chief justice warren wrote an opinion saying you have to look at all the characteristics

justice ginsburg writes an opinion here. it says this is statutory interpretation and congress it this is not what you meant by this stupid interpretation, rewrite it. that same day a senator named hillary clinton introduced a lot to that effect. the president at that time, george w bush threatened to veto the bill if it got pass congress and one of the first things obama did when he came in was in by congress to repass the law, which they did and he had a big signing ceremony, and at the lily ledbetter law. there is also and there is dialogue between the president and the court, good example here are the cases that came out of guantÁnamo with the people in sort of a nonstate status. the court said they are entitled to due process and george bush kept trying to evade in the court st. mary entitled to due process. finally, and this is the hardest one, there is a dialogue between the court and people. you may remember the federalist paper called the least dangerous branch because it had neither the power of the congress nor th

sometime this changes mind, here again i may go to justice ginsburg. since her words are much better than mine, i had the heavy experience once she told the harvard club of washington, of writing a dissent for myself and just one other justice. in time, it became the opinion of the court for which only three of my colleagues dissented. so, there is there is a dialogue going on here. sometimes after the vote at the conference it may appear that the majority is here in the minority is here, the when people start writing you begin to see not just the strengths of different argument but weaknesses as well. so this i think is one of the most important of the dialogue that are taking place. it happens every term, on almost every case. there is also the dialogue between the court and of other branches of the government, such as congress. congress. for example, in an opinion that most academic think is stilted with stupid, the court held that women who suffer discrimination in pay had to report it within six months of when they discovered it. now, if you had t