justice ginsburg: but mr. kneedler, if you're -- if you're making the distinction that johnson was a criminal case and this is a civil case, this court has had a number of decisions saying that line is not so rigid. for example, mlb, taking away parental rights, is a civil proceeding. and yet the court said, as in a criminal proceeding, for an indigent party, the state must give the transcript free. and so, if you had followed a rigid criminal/civil, then if it's civil, no free transcript. only if it's criminal. but the court said the -- the line is blurred when there is such a grave consequence. it was a grave consequence to be denied parental rights. it's a grave consequence to be removed from the united states. mr. kneedler: and so our submission is not just the distinction between civil and criminal, although we think this court's cases establish that there is a difference. but the important points here, though, are immigration is distinctive. immigration, this court has repeatedly said, even though it may

justice kagan: but the - justice gorsuch: i'd like to go back to justice breyer's question, and it would be helpful to get an answer for me on that. what criteria would a state need to know in order to avoid having every district and every case and every election subject to litigation? because the -- the standard that's given in -- in the lower court here was, well, a little bit of partisan symmetry problem, a little bit of an efficiency gap problem, not a real set of criteria. and here, you know, is it 7%, how durable, how many elections would we need? how much data would we have to gather? walk us through justice breyer's question and provide some answers, if you -- if you would. ms. murphy: sure. so i think some of the problems with the criteria that have been suggested, in particular with the test that's focus on these symmetry metrics, is that so far the metrics that we have, i mean, they identify false positives roughly 50% of the time. and i don't know how a legislature is supposed to comply with criteria that can't differentiate between a court-drawn map and a map drawn for parti

justice ginsburg: it is a remark that justice o'connor made to me. she said, suppose we had lived at a time when women were accepted at the bar. you know what we would be today. you and i would be retired partners from some law firm. so at the time, we thought it was not good that we weren't retired. but because we had go a different route, we ended up being supreme court justices. so we will never know. judge williams: very good thing. looking at balancing husband and work, if you could put the slide up, marty was that life partner who thought your work was important as his. and marty was quite a chef. in the early days, you were also cooking for the family. and at some point, your daughter jane asked you to stop cooking. [laughter] justice ginsburg: daddy was the company and the weekend cook. i was never allowed to cook for our weekend guests. i had a book called, "60 minutes chef." you get into the apartment and 60 minutes later the dinner is ready. i had seven things that i made. i went in order. i got to number seven, i went back to number one.

justice now! justice now! justice now! justice now! [inaudible conversations] [crowd chanting]

justice ruth bader ginsburg. [applause] justice ginsburg: thank you. judge williams: can we do a couple of questions? she wants -- can she do a couple? >> if she would like to. sure. do you want to? justice ginsburg: yes. judge williams: let's do three. [chatter] judge williams: she has the mic. you have to hold it. >> hi. judge williams: and tell us your name and your school and what year. >> my name is elizabeth hyde, i'm a second year mccain knee -- mckinney school of law in minneapolis. and out of your entire tenure on the bench, what is one decision or opinion you think should have gotten more attention, and whose significance has been overlooked? justice ginsburg: there are a few decisions, very few supreme court decisions that do not get attention. i spent 13 years on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. and i would say, although i worked very hard on my opinions there too. i realized they were not going to be widely read. even so, i gave each case at the -- each case the best i could give it. so in general, i do not think back about,

justice sotomayor: no. the -- the nature of a plea shouldn't be to automatically say you've lost all rights because you pled guilty. that's basically what your position is today. mr. feigin: may i answer, your honor? your honor, you don't lose all rights. there is a procedure -- justice sotomayor: to -- to the appeal. mr. feigin: -- that was draft -- that was crafted for entering a conditional plea. and if a defendant does not believe that a case is ended by his plea, he should -- it's incumbent upon him to tell the district court and tell the government that that's what he means when he pleads. thank you. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. ms. amunson, four minutes. ms. amunson: thank you, your honor. i'll begin with mr. -- one of mr. feigin's last points, which was whether the error must be clear on the face of the indictment. and, in fact, the claim must be clear on the face of the record at the time of pleading guilty, and that is clear from this court's opinion in broce. and then if i can just

shame. >> justice now. justice, now. justice, now. >> what do we want?justice. >> when do we want it? >> now. >> what do we want? >> justice. >> when do we want it? >> now. >> what do we want? >> justice. ♪

>> justice! >> when do we want it? >> now! >> justice! >> now. >> justice! now! justice! now! [indiscernible crowd conversations] >> justice! now! justice! now! justice! now! justice! now! ♪

of justice website. if you have a different opinion would you provide us a copy of that opinion? attorney general sessions: i would be happy to, but i think it is fair to say that the olc document said that a daca program might be legal if it was done on an individualized basis. the department of justice can't just wipe out whole sections of american law, and just say we are not going to enforce it after congress has passed such a law. so, i would be glad to review it. senator: i hope you will. i hope you will. each dacae record, recipients is individually, individually interviewed, goes through an individual criminal background check, and determines whether there is individual eligibility. therney general sessions: court found otherwise. will show hope you that opinion. did you have any communication with the texas attorney general, or any other attorney general who was threatening to bring a -- to voidvoid daca, before the decision by the trump administration? attorney general sessions: i would just sa

in georgia but justice , gorsuch, justice alito and justice thomas would not have done so your i wonder what you make of the different approach between the conservative camps? senator lee: i think you'll see similar patterns like that and he views the law in much the same way as justice thomas and my former boss justice alito in some of the same way his predecessor saw the world in the same light. i also think we have to remember in most cases in the supreme court are not decided 5-4. most of them are not even decided 6-3. a whole lot of them are decided unanimously, or 8-1 or 7-2. it is in the close cases and the politically charged cases where you tend to see much more of a division. but i do suspect you'll often see four justices lining up quite consistently on the conservative side of things, often with the support of justice kennedy but not always. i also think you'll continue to see real meaning, value being added by justice gorsuch. in other words, i don't think he'll be blindly following his conservative colleagues in those cases. i think he'll be contributing in a very meaningf

why don't be have a justice that is other than the ivy league? thank you very much. >> host: what is the breakdown over justices in terms of college and wife do you think people think that's important? >> guest: i think it is true that the supreme supreme court s probably one of most elitist institutions in the country, ifm not the most, not just the justices but most of the law c clerks who come to the court every year, who are young recent law school graduates, nearly all come from the top law schools and there have been some complaints in the past that leads to a lack of diversity on the court in terms of the law clerks and the justices themselves, because a lot of them come from the same kind of ivory tower background. some of the justice does make more of an effort thans to overcome that by hiring law clingers from different law schools, maybe not ones everybody knows about.ve when it comes to the nomination of supreme court justices they tend to be from the ivy league schools. >> host: sever justices attend the so-called red mass. what this

sorry, justice. go ahead. >> the thing that was special was the onlys he way i had met up until then who cared that i had a brain. [laughter] judge williams: you were 17 and he was 18 and you are married for 56 years. as a wedding gift to you, your mother-in-law evelyn give you a gift. you actually got married in your home. twitted by stitching give you -- what advice did she give you? >> to tell me just before we have the ceremony. she took me aside to the bedroom and said, i would like to send you the secret of a happy marriage. yes, what is it? [laughter] "it helps, now and then, to be a little deaf." notas wonderful advice, only in a marriage that lasted 56 years, but even to this day in dealing with my colleagues. [laughter] [laughter] [applause] judge williams: so then you did get married. you have your earplugs. go back one more on the script. you got married and you -- marty, he wasn't drafted. he went into the military. he started at harvard then he had to go to the military. you moved to ok

-- right before justice scalia died. but then he died and suddenly the court could not decide the case it was four / four which means there was no actual ruling or a precedent set this is the chance to decide this question which actually they need to but if they do decide to overturn the of president to prevent them from to take the fees from nonmembers.t >> the nonmembers can do that already for the collective bargaining m activity to say then the workers who were not unionhe members get a free ride because they're still representing them in the negotiations. >> host: we spend the first hour talking about guns and the tragedy of las vegas where more than 50 killed and 500 injured so many gun cases?. >> guest: not yet but it is possible they could. in general they don't have much to say in the gun rights debate, if they choose to there are a couplee of cases and also another case from maryland and has been reluctant to weigh in on the gun rights in 2008 that was the big decision for the individual rights to bear arms and

at the department of justice, we understand a key fact. and we all need to understand this. 85% of law enforcement officers in america are state and local. they are better trained and more professional than ever. it's a huge factor in the decline in crime in my opinion, that we've seen previously. and we know crime in america will never be reduced without a partnership between federal and state officers. there's no doubt that federal, state, and tribal resources professionally applied and in accord with scientifically proven policies can positively impact the crime rate. if you look at our cities, as mr. chairman, you noted, new york has dedicated itself over decades to highly effective, proactive, community-based policing. they saw 344 homicides last year. chicago, on the other hand, while only a third of the size of new york, logged more than twice as many murders. so our professionals in the department have been intensely studying how research-based, proven crime reduction techniques can reverse sea breezes they produced, in my opinion,

justice, rked for a what intercontinental action will justice sew lito -- justice elito have. ? >> i think neil core such will be a coalition builder by virtue of the fact he is very smart and not afraid to express his opinions and very much in the mold of justice scalia in the sense his focus is on the text, the text of a statute being construed or the constitutional provision in line. >> you raised the masterpiece case and i saw you filed a friend of the court brief supporting the colorado baker. i wonder if you could walk us through your thought process and how you think judges should be balancing public accommodation law versus, you know, the religious rights of citizens and what would you say to people who say that this case, if the baker wants, at least threaten to survive -- drive a hole through accommodation laws that prevented businesses from picking and choosing who they served? >> i'm happy to answer that question. this case really is not about public accommodation law so much as it is about compelled speech. i view this as a compelled speech case. the bakery owner he

there are other controversial policies being implemented at justice. presidents travel ban, for example. multiple federal courts found the muslim ban unconstitutional, including another court in hawaii just yesterday. these travel ban efforts are an affront to our nations commitment destination's commitment to religious liberty, yet the justice department staunchly defends the ban. on daca, you recommended in september that the program be terminated. i think we believe these young people have placed their trust in the government, they have come out of the shadows, they have provided all of their information to authorities. they seek the opportunity to get right with the law, and i think most of us believe these dreamers embody the american spirit and have made positive contributions to the country, so we should stand by them. finally, we will also wants to hear about the firing of fbi director james comey. president trump initially said he fired director call me based on your recommendation and that of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. within day

after the department of justice at the moment of justice, we understand a key fact, -- at the department of justice, we understand a key fact. most police officers in america are state and local. they are better trained and more professional than ever. it is a huge factor in the decline in crime, in my opinion, that we have seen recently, and we know crime in america will never be reduced without a partnership between federal and state officers. there is no doubt that federal, state, local, and travel resources especially a pride -- applied with scientifically proven polities can significant -- policies can significantly impact the crime rate. if you look at our cities -- mr. chairman, you noted that new york has dedicated itself over decades to highly effective, proactive, community-based policing. they saw 334 homicides last year. chicago, on the other hand, while only one third of the size of new york, logged more than twice as many murders. our professionals in the department have been intensely studying how research-based proven crime reduction techniques can reverse increases in cr

justice now! justice now! justice now! [inaudible conversations] [crowd chanting] . >> justin now! justice now! justice now! ♪ ♪ >> thank you for the amazing performance. how are you all doing? we are going to get this show started. thank you all for joining us tod today. i want it get some chants going. so that those in power hear us loud and clear why we're here today to stand for black women and for racial justice. all right? >> black lives matter. black lives matter. >> black lives matter. >> black lives matter. >> black lives matter. >> black women matter! >> black women matter! >> black women matter! black women matter! >> come on, i can't hear you all. black women matter! >> black women matter! >> black women matter! >> black women matter! >> black women matter! >> black lives matter! >> black lives matter! >> black lives matter! >> black lives matter! >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no racists, no justice. >> no racist. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no racist. >> black women are under attack what do we do? stand up and fight back. when black wome

no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace.> no justice. >> no peace. >> no racist -- . >> police. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no racist -- >> police. >> when black women are under attack, what do we do? stand up, fight back. when indigenous women are under attack, what do? >> stand up, fight back. >> when muslim women are under attack, what do we do? >> stand up, fight back. >> when any of us are under attack, what do we do? >> stand up, fight back. >> what do we do? >> stand up, fight back. >> what do we do? >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> stand up, fight back. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace. racistrump, no kkk, no usa. no trump, no kkk, no racist usa. no trump, no kkk, no

justice roberts present. a justice kennedy been told i would get to my new chambers that afternoon and it would be a a phone and a computer and a desk, and no one would ever call me again. [laughing] so he advised me to get out and teach and speak and interact with the bar and students, something he had regularly done on the ninth circuit at that he has continued to do for his menus on the supreme court. anyway, i listened. i've taught full-term classes the plastic it i try to get out to many of our events and visit law schools, and tonight i'm following his advice with the honor of delivering the story lecture. when justice kennedy says something, i listen. me and 320 million other americans. i want to thank general meese not just for hosting me here and helping me in the confirmation process back in 2006, but far more importantly for the central role he played in leaving the revival of originalism and textualism in american law. i cannot emphasize enough how significant general meese has been in changing th

this is the republican justice department so let's give us some answers.portant question let's look at the special counsel issue. lou: i think you are certainly right. this is a republican justice department but it's people that fly our flag whether you talk about rosenstein or the special counsel robert mueller andrew mckay vin number two. the list goes on and we can't even get a response from a republican attorney general to a republican house oversight committee? >> they won't give us a response and when i asked the question when we make a decision they said i don't know which is in response to that. when you think about 2069 eyes come back to this. think about some of the things that happen. we have as full investigation into possible russian influence but we know the obama justice department tried to influence the election because remember loretta lynch called the clinton investigation. loretta lynch one day before three days before secretary is scheduled to be interviewed meets bill clinton on the tarmac in phoenix and went she discovered she was hav

why are all the supreme court justices part of the ivy league? either from harvard or princeton or cornell or whatever. why don't we have to go along with a justice that's other than the ivy league? host: what is the breakdown in terms of college? and why do you think people think that's important? est: it is true that the supreme court is probably one of the most elitist institutions in the country if not the most. not just the justices but most of the law clerks who come to the court every year, who are young recent law school graduates. nearly all come from the top law schools and there have been some complaints in the past that that leads to a lack of on the court in terms the law clerks and also the justices themselves because a lot of them come from the same kind of ivory tower kind of background. some of the justices do make more of an effort than others to try to overcome that by hiring law clerks from different law schools, maybe not the ones that everybody knows justices themselves because a lot of them come from the same kind of about.

who were appointed by a federalist president versus justice who -- justices who were reported -- justicesho were appointed by republican presidents. if you have a unanimous court he can do pretty much what you want. -- in fletcher eck, there are three nominees from thomas jefferson. as you get into the golden era asmartin -- golden era --shall comes into his own also by the way, a former student of james wilson. those two federalists against fremont -- three madison into from jefferson. it is pretty extraordinary. it is like beethoven composing music, death. unanimousd together decisions of a prominently nationalist character, with nominees from madison, monro, john quincy adams and jackson. so anyway, this is a nice illustration of one of the miracles that marshall wrought. he also designed the chief ship.ce this was not a plum assignment in the 1780's. you went through john jay, patrick henry turned it down, alexander hamilton was offered the position and turned it down. i wonder what lin-manuel miranda would have done with 35 years of alexander hamilton as chief justice. [laughter] we

no justice. >> -- no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >>.o peace -- no peace. >> no-trump, no kkk, no racist usa. no trump, no-- kkk, no racist usa. usa.ump, no kkk, no racist what do we think about white supremacy? >> boo! >> what do we think about white supremacy? blue -- boo! >> it's got to go. it is sitting in the white house. it has been in this country from the very beginning. today we have an administration that is set on marginalizing our community, on taking our lives, taking our jobs, taking our theth care, and ignoring unnatural disasters that are happening across the country and the world. the neighboring countries that are suffering from these natural disasters that could be prevented with resources. what do we want? >> justice. >> when do we want to? -- when do we want it? >> now. ho, white, ho supremacy has got to go. white hey, ho ho, supremacy has got to go. one last time -- black lives matter. >> black lives matter. >> black lives matter. >> black women matter. >> black women matter! >> black women matter? >> black women ma

why are all the supreme court justices part of the ivy league? either from harvard or princeton or cornell or whatever. why don't we have to go along with a justice that's other than the ivy league? host: what is the breakdown in terms of college? and why do you think people think that's important? est: it is true that the supreme court is probably one of the most elitist institutions in the country if not the most. not just the justices but most of the law clerks who come to the court every year, who are young recent law school graduates. nearly all come from the top law schools and there have been some complaints in the past that that leads to a lack of on the court in terms the law clerks and also the justices themselves because a lot of them come from the same kind of ivory tower kind of background. some of the justices do make more of an effort than others to try to overcome that by hiring law clerks from different law schools, maybe not the ones that everybody knows justices themselves because a lot of them come from the same kind of about.

the justice department for nearly six years of the department of justice had argued that the texas law was unconstitutional. they have a disproportionate effect on minorities. the department dropped its opposition to the texas law.nt under ohio's procedures the voters who had it cast the ballot in six years and failed to return a postcard were removed from state voting rules. this process reportedly had that in one county alone. i hope the county which covers cleveland and the surrounding suburbs. it forbids the state from removing individuals in a post ohio's purge some six circuit agreed that the process for removing them. they can cast them in the 2016 a presidential election. however, and now the department is taking the side of removing boaters from the rolls. even though the last election clearly demonstrated how this eligible voters. i would not like to turn to lgbt rights. i worked to ensure the americans have equal rights and protections under the law and it's important to me that we preserve these protections. they should not do that. enter confirmation hearing you testified

only way to enforce a subpoena to the department of justice is to go to the department of justice.udge jeanine: should jeff sessions be out? >> i don't know what the case is to keep number this case. obvious conflicts of interest. give him a week or so or 10 days and say have you or have you not looked at conflict of interest. if he has, let's see the answer to that. at least on the surface these people are all conflict and should not be investigating or prosecuting cases they were involved with. judge jeanine: mike huck beef is still on deck. plus my exclusive interview with the chairman of the board of the museum of the bible. ♪ hey grandpa. hey, kid. really good to see you. you too. you tell grandma you were going fishing again? maybe. (vo) the best things in life keep going. that's why i got a subaru, too. introducing the all-new crosstrek. love is out there. find it in a subaru crosstrek. judge jeanine: the dems continue to down play developments in the obama-era uranium one deal and the russian dossier story. >> this whole uranium thing comes from fox news. this is a closed i

it was altered by the previous obama department of justice. i believe attorney general holder in which he declared that you should not and even directed you should not charge what congress has set as a serious offense that carries a minimum sentence. >> so you were restoring what was previously known as the ash policy? >> i was determined to have a directed to the attorneys. not have a long six-page memorandum. we submit a one-page memo to them. and it said if you think that's not just and you clear it with your u.s. attorney or the designate of the u.s. attorney, you'd charge less than the most serious readily approvable defense. don't have to call washington. don't have to get some bureaucracy. we're going to trust you. i told them i hope that would work. if we had serious problems with it, we would revisit it. >> okay. do you -- >> by the way, it only requires the minimum sentence be imposed. doesn't require the maximum sentence as some have said. it simply says if you commit a serious crime that congress says should carry a certain sentenc

justice department. those questions surround an fbi inform and under a gag order and a congressional investigation. sources tell us that president trump let it be known that he wanted the justice department to make that gag order disappear. something confirmed today by the white house adviser, kellyanne conway. >> it is not unusual for a president to weigh in. this president as you saw from everything from the jfk files to this particular ongoing investigation is for transparency. he believes as many others do, frankly, that the fbi informant should be free to say what he knows. >> kellyanne conway interviewed on the new day earlier today. the justice correspondent is joining us. do we know or did the president influence the justice department's decision? >> yes, he did. he know that from two sources that president trump directed his senior staff to get that gag order on the informant lifted. this informant said he wants to share the details of what he is calling corruption surrounding the approval of th

as a fugitive from justice. since then more than half a million names of fugitives without -- outstanding arrest warrants have been removed from the fbi's national criminal background check. we are hearings of local law enforcement, which has concern about this. why did the department reject the fbi's view that the law blocks sales to anyone with an arrest for it? a.g. sessions: i will have to review that. i would. sen. feinstein: thank you. a.g. sessions: i am assuming there was no conviction. sen. feinstein: i would like to know the detail of that. a.g. sessions: i should know but i don't. sen. feinstein: let me for a moment on the dark web. the new york times ran a tragic piece about the use of the dark web by drug traffickers and other criminal enterprises to secretly do business with users. usedf the dark web being by criminals is going to grow in the coming years. do you have any plans to address it, or would you begin to think about it so we might have some because ions on this think there is a lot of con

but we did learn that the soul mission of the justice department -- sole mission of the justice department's settlements under the prior administration was to aid the families commose economic security was jeopardized -- -- jeopardized by reckless wall street behavior and prevent them fromlusion their homes due to fraudulent mortgage practices. there are many examples where generalized harm is impossible to calculate or impractical to quantify in the courts, and without this ability by the justice department to enter into these settlement agreements, corporate wrong doctors are going to be free -- wrongdoers are going to be free to do whatever they want. one example, deep water -- deepwater horizon. there was state-based cleanup that was provided, there was funding for the national fish and wildlife foundation for remediation, things that were directly responsive to the harm caused. but you couldn't quantify to an individual person, and that's what this legislation will prevent. i urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman rese

where is justice department the president asks?ntributor, we've set it up. it is a big moment on capitol hill. what do you expect to come out of the hearing today? >> a little bit of everything. you have as you always do senators, individual senators with their own topics they want to have addressed both policy and potential scandal. i expect we'll hear something about recent changes that jeff sessions and the justice department have made to how transgender people are treated. we'll hear about daca and immigration policy changes. and we'll hear about james comey and the kinds of things that you are suggesting in the intro. >> sandra: if i may step in here, steven. you see jeff sessions the attorney general has entered the room shaking hands as he approaches and will take his seat shortly. this is also happening as we now learn the former f.b.i. director james comey drafted that exoneration letter for hillary clinton months before the conclusion of his investigation. before he had even spoken with hillary clinton or conducted key in

[indiscernible crowd conversations] >> justice! now! justice! now! justice! now! justice! now! ♪ >> all right. thank you. how are you all doing? showe going to get this started. thank you you all for joining us today. chance going some to let those in power know why we're here today to stand for black power in racial justice. all right? matter! lives >> black lives matter! black lives matter! >> black women matter! >> black women matter! >> black women matter! come on, i cannot hear you all. >> black women matter! black women matter! >> black women matter! >> black women matter! >> lack lives matter! >> black lives matter! [indiscernible] [indiscernible chanting] >> when black women are under attack, what we do? fight back! when indigenous women are under attack, what do we do? fight back! when any of us are under attack, what we do? >> stand up, fight back! >> what do we do? >> stand up, fight back! >> stand up, fight back! stand up, fight back! stand up, fight back! stand up, fight back! chanting] >> no justice >> no peace -- >> no justice -- prompt k kk no trump , no tramp,

it's kickoff time, justice starts now. welcome to justice. i'm jeanine pirro.efore we begin, i want to say thank you for again making "justice" the most of watched cable news show on saturday. and another all-star lineup including conservative author mark steyn, congressman jason chaffetz and former nfl football player. but first my opening statement. establishment republicans beware. if you think you can keep doing what you have been doing, which by the way is nothing, and keep your seats, keep drinking or smoking whatever your favorite lobbyist is procuring for you and your insignificant irrelevant, inconsequential not worth a rat vote. this week non-establishment candidate judge roy moore wouldn't u.s. alabama senatorial runoff in spite of senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's pac giving luther strange $9 million. think about it. roy moore with virtually no money wins even though the president @megynkelly's request supports the sitting senator. now that would make sense. the president at at mitch mcconnell's request supports the sitting senator. moore is

thomas for chief justice roberts. first i want to welcome everyone to my home. i would like to recognize the vice president of the united states and mrs. cheney. [applause] [inaudible] justice breyer. [applause] i don't know if you've heard by now that justice has written a n about. [laughter] my grandfather signed. it is a pleasure for me to introduce my friend and mentor of 25 years and when i continue to respect and admire that exemplifies the meaning of a man and i want to welcome you to my home and start first book, >> my last book. [laughter] justice clarence thomas. [applause] >> first of all let me think armstrong for hosting this wonderful event and the vice president and mrs. cheney. sorry to put you through all that trouble, and my colleagues who've been a source of comfort over the past 16 years it is hard i think for people to realize just how wonderful the court family is. even with exasperation and sometimes we might get frustrated with each other, it is a family and when we see court family, it's been

kennedy for whom i clerked with my family and justice kennedy and chief justice roberts present. justice kennedy told me i could get to my chambers that afternoon and there would be a phone and computer and a task and no one would ever call me again. [laughter] so he advised me to get out and teach and speak and interact at the bar and students and something that he had regularly done and had continued to do for as many years on the supreme court. anyway, i listened to the classes every year for the last decade i tried to get out too many events and visit schools and tonight i'm following his advice with the honor of delivering the story lecture when justice kennedy says something, i listen. be and many other americans. i want to thank him not just for hosting me in the process back in 2006, but more importantly for the central role he played in leading the revival of the ritualism and american law. i cannot emphasize enough how significant he has been in changing the direction of american law. i think often they helped bring about a revolution in legal theory and doctrine. when

that's what equal justice under the law means. and when that doesn't happen, when someone is denied equal justice under law, even one time, of course our system hasn't worked well. but when you see the numbers that i cited earlier that the chamber of commerce has a success rate of 70%, i'm not sure we can say that equal justice under the law, that principle has been adhered to. when that happens of course, with saint -- augustaine reminded us of several years that without justice kingdoms people are great band of robbers. but in one case, but unfortunately we know from the record it is a lot more than one case. but one is too many if you believe in equal justice under law. so i have serious concerns that that promise, the ultimate promise of justice which was enshrined in our constitution by our founders, brought forward by the judiciary act of 1789 and continued to this present day, that that basic promise of equal justice under law could be in jeopardy. some would say it is in jeopardy already, as this administration puts its st

chief justice and may it >> -- >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. may i begin by answering a little bit more fully justice sotomayor's question at the end. approximately 55% of non-union private employees have contracts that are covered by mandatory arbitration agreements, and that covers about 60 million people. 23% of those employees have non-individual -- i'm sorry, non-joint, non-class, non-collective restrictions which represents about 25 million employees. >> so this decision in your favor would invalidate the agreements covering 25 million employees? >> yes, your honor. if i may respond to a few points of mr. wall's. there seems to be a belief on the employer's side that allowing employees to waive section 23, rule 20 and section 16b rights under the fair labor standards act, except when the section 7 of the nlra is in the picture somehow creates an anomaly, but that's not the case, your honors. all these others, rule 20, rule 23 and section 16 create remedial mechanisms, but they create no substantive rights. section 7 of the nlra, section t

i liked justice scalia. i met him first when he was on the faculty of the university of chicago law school. he gave a speech to the american law association on some administrative law issue. i disagreed with most of what he said. i was captivated by the way he said it. he was so amusing. then we were buddies on the d.c. circuit. one thing that we had in common we tried hard to write comprehensible opinion. we both worked very hard about getting it right and keeping it tight. >> one of the cases you really differed with him on was bush versus gore. i think he told you take a hot bath. >> that wasn't end of the day. this was a marathon. the court granted review on saturday. brief filed sunday, oral argument monday, decisions and there were multiple opinions out on tuesday. it has been a long and trying day. justice scalia called me 9:00 at night. he said ruth why are you still at the court? go home and take a hot bath. it was good advice. people ask, after that, you -- how did you work together? the answer is

after the department of justice at the moment of justice, we understand a key fact, -- at the department of justice, we understand a key fact. most police officers in america are state and local. they are better trained and more professional than ever. it is a huge factor in the decline in crime, in my opinion, that we have seen recently, and we know crime in america will never be reduced without a partnership between federal and state officers. there is no doubt that federal, state, local, and travel resources especially a pride -- applied with scientifically proven polities can significant -- policies can significantly impact the crime rate. if you look at our cities -- mr. chairman, you noted that new york has dedicated itself over decades to highly effective, proactive, community-based policing. they saw 334 homicides last year. chicago, on the other hand, while only one third of the size of new york, logged more than twice as many murders. our professionals in the department have been intensely studying how research-based proven crime reduction techniques can reverse increases in cr

along with chief justice rehnquist and justice scalia. judge bourque and judge ginsberg and many others in the 1970's and 1980's. general meeselaid the ground work for a rule of law and law of rules. the notion as he put it in 1985, the judges should not be roaming at flarge the constitutional forest. so a few months ago i told john malcolm that i would talk about the separation of powers. i suppose that was was not a limiting legislation is of a topic for me. if you were in my judicial chambers, you would hear me saying to my clerks, every case is a separation of powers case. i believe that. who decides is the basic separation of powers question at the core of so many legal disputes. and the bread and butter of our docket on the d.c. circuit is interpretationor statutes. usually when deciding whether an agency exceeded the 12567 tori authority or limbs. that question of policing the balance between the legislative and executive branches, our administrative law docket nstitutes one of the most in american law. if you sat in our courtroom

justice breyer: no. that cannot be right because if you are admitting they can convict you and put you in prison we would not have blackledge and menna, because in blackledge and menna, they admitted they did what the statute forbids, but still they could claim that it's double jeopardy or vindictive prosecution. mr. fagan: your honor, let me give you one more counter-example. and then let me please address blackledge against menna and why i don't think they stand for what you say. but i think actually the closest analogue we have to this case is brady against united states, which, unlike blackledge and menna, was a challenge to the act of the legislature, not the act of bringing the prosecution. in brady against united states, you had a statute where a defendant was only exposed to the death penalty if the jury recommended the death penalty. and the court held in brady, as explained by tollett, that once a defendant pleads guilty, he cannot claim that his conviction is invalid because of structural defe

dispensing equal justice under law. those words, equal justice under law, are etched into the front of the supreme court. if we truly believe those words, we need to start making some changes. the and in recent years we've seen some progress. some state and local governments have made real efforts to reduce crime and lower incarceration rates. massachusetts is one of the states leading the way with elected officials in both parties debating transformative changes to the judicial system aimed at replacing this tough-on-crime policies with smart-on-crime policies. the call for he reform also extends to corporate crime. public outrage at corporate greed has created pressure to hold the rich and the powerful a little more accountable. but president trump is committed to reversing that trend. he's working hand in hand with this republican congress to ensure that the rich get to play by their own set of rules while everyone else gets crushed under the awesome power of law enforcement. this week will be a big step forward for