justice scalia always spoke well of justice ginsburg. he might not join one of her opinions but he was never die -- he respected her and she respected him and it's unfortunate you don't see that anymore. people funam'll different played politically or ideaolly but they can work together as friends. >> guest: ideology has taken ahold of everything and i think if people let that happen, they're missing out on encounters with a lot of great people and great friendshipped. in their case, they focused on what they had in common. it was an awful lot. they were born in -- my dad was born in trenton but grew up in new york the same time so they had that in common. that was an element to their friendship. they both loved opera. they had cameo appearances in operad together, and their spouses were great friend, too. my mother is a great cook, justice ginsburg's husband, marty, was basically a gourmet chef, and justice ginsburg and my dad liked to eat so that was another element of their friendship. that i really think kind of just by focusing on t

speak with christopher scalia, justice antonin scalia most powerful writers in the spring court opinions and a lot of distance with real fingers, great for people like me quoting him but this is not a book about court opinions but about speeches. why speeches? to as you said his court opinions are memorable and i'm often told by law students and reporters that they went to the prince first for that reason and they were so fully written and evocative and powerful in his speeches have some of the same qualities, really the great qualities that his opinions do you think the advantage of the speeches is that he could let more of his personality shine through one thing. is a great performer with a little bit of a ham in him and he played mcbeth in high school production of that play and he was, i think, the president of georgetown's pure club so that the ethical side times through in the speeches and way that it just doesn't in the opinions. court opinions are necessarily they have to follow certain conventions that are apt to turn off the average person who is not a court follower or law stu

emily: god rest his soul, justice scalia. dick: rest in peace.hat is what he will be forever famous for. emily: i have never asked you -- we are good friends, but when you go to the supreme court, and it if anyone has ever been there, it is an amazing american experience. you don't get to see it on tv. it is lawyers and governments and all stuff, but it is all about the case of just dick heller. that is it. what was it like sitting in the front row with all these justices in front of you? dick: it is amazing. the supreme court gallery for observers is not much bigger than this inner area -- emily: it is very small. dick: it was full of people. you could hear your heart beat. it was like being in a quiet room, if you are familiar with that. and if a mouse ran across the floor, you would have heard it. quiet. emily: you were at that front table looking up at the supreme court justices. dick: the other thing is, it was so quiet, how quiet was it other than the mouse? it was so quiet, total science -- silence, then the court clerk smashes the gavel a

i didn't know anything but i know we had won something. >> god rest his soul, justice scalia. >> rest in peace. that's what he will be famous for forever. >> and what was it like, i never asked you this. you go to the supreme court, it is i suggest it is an amazing american experience, understanding that, we don't get to see it on tv. when you're there, this case, it is lawyers and governments and cities and stuff, but it is all about the case comes down to dick heller. that's it. what was it like sitting in the front row with all of the justices in front of you? >> it is amazing. the supreme court gallery for observers is not much bigger than this inner area. >> it is very small. unexpectedly. >> very small. it was full of people. and you could hear your heartbeat. it was like being in a quiet room, if you're familiar with that. and if a mouse ran across the floor, you would have heard it. >> you've sat in that front table, looking up at the supreme court justices. >> well, the other thing is it was so quiet, how quiet was it, other than the mouse, it was so quiet, total silence, and

[laughter] when justice scalia was alive, it was a competition between sotomayor and scalia to see who could ask the most questions in an oral argument. [laughter] host: so many -- justice ginsburg: let me tell you another story, it's a very jewish story. so one day in argument justice o'connor was asking a question, and then i jumped in and she said, just a minute. i'm not finished. next day in a "usa today" headline, rude ruth interrupts sandra. [laughter] >> at lunch immediately after i apologized to sandra and she said, ruth, don't worry about it at all. the guys do it to each other all the time. [laughter] so when i was asked my reaction to the article, my response was, -- reaction to the article, that's what my response was. the reporter who wrote the story watched for the next two argument sessions and said, she is right. i never noticed it when the men are interrupting each other. then a woman came to my rescue from georgetown, a great expert in language, and she tried to explain how was it that i came to interrupt sandra. well, justice sandra day o'connor is from a ranch on th

when justice scalia was alive, it was a competition between sotomayor and scalia to see who could ask the most questions. >> host: so many -- >> guest: let me tell you another -- [laughter] -- it's a very jewish story. so, one day, in argument certification justice o'connor was asking a question, and then i jumped in and she said, just a minute. i'm not finished. next day, in "usa today" headline, rude ruth interrupts sandra. at lunch immediately after -- apologized. she say, ruth, don't worry about it. the guy does it to each other all the time. so when i was asked my reaction to the al-that's what my response was. the reporter who wrote the story, watched for the next two argument sessions and said, she is right. i never noticed it when the men interrupt. then a woman came to my rescue from georgetown, great expert expert and lange, and she came to complain how i came to interrupt san contract. just at sandra day o'connor is from a ranch on the border between new mexico and arizona, laid back gal from the west, and i am a fast-talking jewish girl from new york. well, people know the

justice scalia authored an opinion, we will be inspired by justice scalia as we make an opinion on theefinition. [applause] that definition is coming this year. the president has shown tremendous courage there. >> before we get to an overview of what you have been able to accomplish i want to mention the fact that you have managed to land on the cover of the weekly standard and the national review, does go of the great magazines in our nation. and gq. they called to the fifth most powerful man in washington, d.c.. some in the media painted different picture. that great reminded works of great enemies. when the slings and arrows come your way, what is the guiding star that leads you to the fight? -- through the fight? >> these issues that we deal with should not be as contentious as they are. democrats ared for clean air and clean water. it is just about how we achieve those means. when you think about how it has been done in the last several years, we ought to be focused on partnership with the states. states across this country, governors and departments of environment equality have b

and justice scalia passed away shortly after the oral argument and the court affirmed suggesting that justice scalia was the vote and his comments were the indication that the way it looked that they would have been overruled requiring public-sector employees and states cannot require them to pay those agency fees to the agency. so if you are reading the tea leaves it is reasonable to conclude justice course which is in this case but if you look at his poor voting record there is a possibility he could help with the conservative wing on the court. [laughter] met to backup a public employee from illinois he isn't a member of his union but illinois law and collective bargaining agreement to pay $45 to the union it is a violation to be compelled to subsidize those activities and political activities of the union. why are the political activitie activities? it is undisputed you cannot force people to subsidize unions but here they are used for collective bargaining. so when the other party is the state you're trying to get something out of the state with public policy to get this pension

of people who were convicted for murder and the results of that study is as justice scalia pointed out was in .003% of the cases where someone in the country at the federal and state levelst convicted of murder actually innocent that means 99.7% of the time our system of justice got it right. >> host: dave, jacksonville, florida, your next independent. >> caller: good morning. a while back there have been reports that trump was personallys interviewing for federal prosecutors or a usa's for the district where trump tower is located and i was wondering if how your association looks at that and his federal judiciary nomination so a lot of them are already going through but they weren't approved by the aba. how do you and your brother and look upon the things? thank you. >> guest: thank you for the question. it's a good one. in our system of justice the 94 us attorney's office are manned by 93 united states attorneys and 93 united states attorneys are all political appointees and they serve at the pleasure of the president. they are traditionally interviewed and recommended by the permit

. >> and justice scalia described it-- >> and it seems to work. you know, we've put on our faux and stay warm and i've got no problem with that. and you know, i do think it is a puzzle in this court how to navigate the question of kind of major doctrinal steps when the opinion that's going to get written says something about the vitality of precedent and when it's time to overrule it. so, it is a-- i think a very, very serious concern for how many votes you can get. this case doesn't, i think itself, ring, you know, a loud ideological bell. it isn't one while we have justice kennedy, justice gorsuch, and justice thomas who have spoken on this question, it's not something that you think that justice briar is wringing his hands about the sales tax, he probably doesn't use a computer-- he probably does use a computer, but doesn't do on-line shopping as much as joanne does. >> use a cell phone. >> and where the justices stand technologically is not quite -- doesn't itself have any kind of ideological resonance either. but we are very, very conscious.

died which left an evenly divided court unable to set precedent in a similar case justice scalia had since been replaced has since been replaced on the court by conservative justice neil who in famously ruled against a trucker who was fired from his job after he nearly froze to death while completing his job. krypto markets are on the rise again with the top ten coins all in positive territory monday bitcoin has spiked above ten thousand dollars to ten thousand three hundred an afternoon trading that's a gain of more than ten percent up more than nine hundred dollars and twenty four hours. so will kryptos take off like they did late last year here discusses jeffrey tucker the editorial director of the american institute for economic research jeffrey welcome back i want to get to your op ed in a minute but what do you make of these price moves. it's funny in the crypto space in the president everyone's happy with their fall and everybody's sad you know we discuss these waves of emotion and it's all fun we all know where this is headed up up up when how much nobody knows for sure r

[applause] fascinating is that 15 minutes after justice scalia said we are not here to a race the second amendment, -- the the secondse amendment, the lawsuit was filed in the city of chicago that same day. that started the ball rolling. >> those of you know that the battles on gun control, constitutional issues of gun control are not over. timeand i complain all the about this crazy registration system. we have to go to the government every time we want to buy a gun. but this is our time to look back and say this is the first time in the united states government that the supreme court ruled that we as individuals have a natural, not given right to defend ourselves and our home. dick, what have you seen in the hasears since how this impacted our country and impacted our understanding about what one person can do if the constitution and our rights are not being adhered to? -- justicece leah scalia said, it is a constitutional right. i was shocked to find that there other cases, lawsuits that had been brought in state throughout the country. now, if you do the count, i am shocked to find o

we need to think back to justice scalia because the myth is is that when justice scalia wrote -- wrote the opinion 2000 and he took an absolute position on the mmm. that is with the national rifle association would like everyone to believe. if you look at it, there are lots of things that justice scalia was careful to write to say, you could ban possession by felons, people who are mentally ill, and the use of guns in sensitive areas like schools, government offices and all sorts of other things that could be done. just today the supreme court declined to review california law requires the 10 day waiting period before you by maggie gun, only justice thomas wanted to review that. everyone else had no problem with the california law. there's a lot more room legally to do a lot of regulation and it is the matter of political will there is a moment with these kids you had on to take advantage of that. i think for those who want to gun control, the time is now but they have to keep up the pressure because it is easy for the story to move on and before you know we will be talking about somet

justice thomas: i used to ask justice scalia about that. he always thought it was interesting that we were so similar. he would say, clarence, he said, my parents, my father was a romance literature professor. my mother was a teacher so i know how i got here. how did you get here? and why are we at the same place? why do we have the same set of beliefs? and i think the beauty of having gone to parochial schools was they taught us how to -- there was a right way to think about things, that we had to be honest with ourselves, honest about math, honest about physics, honest about chemistry, that you couldn't cheat when you did your latin translation or german or french because i had all those in high school. and i was talking recently with someone. he said, it was your formation, that there was always a right way to do things. there was an honest way to do things. and the progression is -- i became catholic when i went to he second grade in 1955. sister mary rosa and wonderful person. at any rate, i became an altar boy and the progression is y

. >> is that what justice scalia described as faux judicial? >> it seems to work. we put on our faux and stay warm. i've got no problem with that. and i think it's a puzzle in this court how to navigate the question of kind of major doctrinal steps when the opinion that's going to get written says something about the vitality of precedent and when it's time to overrule it so it is a -- i think a very, very serious concern for how many votes you can get. this case doesn't, i think, itself ring a loud ideological bell. it isn't one that while we have justice kennedy, justice gorsuch and justice thomas who have spoken on this question, it's not something that you would think justice breyer is there wringing his hands about how he doesn't want to pay a sales tax. i don't think he uses a computer. he probably does but he doesn't do as much online shopping as joanna does. >> we know he has a cell phone. >> but the chief does not believe anyone has two cell phones. and where the justices stand technologically is i think not quite -- doesn't itself have any kind of ideolog

justice scalia said i was solipsistic. i said i have no idea what that means but i like the ring of it. that means i really like my own opinions. and that he said once, clarence, you really don't care for other peoples' opinions, do you? care,en i said, no, i do but i prefer my own. [laughter] justice thomas: i don't know. i think it is really important that when you vote for these things that you explain why and that if it doesn't make sense -- my granddaddy -- i'm not going to use the words he used exactly. he said "boy, if it don't make no sense, it don't make no sense." of course he would spice it up a , little bit. and i think it makes sense to me. when you come from the lower levels in society, when you -- poverty, things have to make sense. , "either you fed the hogs or you didn't fed the hogs. you either greece to the tractor. you either planted the corn or you either greased the tractor or you didn't grease the tractor. you either planted the corn or didn't plant the corn." it was binary, and it was clear. when we

there is never a more pure attached thatng justice scalia. he served wonderfully for 30 years on the supreme court. this was a case about the use of infrared technology to look into people's houses. the question presented was whether that was a search. he said, the fact that it was not a technology known at the time does not alter the fact into thes intruding areas of the home where people -- it is a search of the home. it actually matches the literal words of the fourth amendment. i think similarly, to seize somebody's phone conversations, to wiretap, is a seizure. sure, it was not a technology known at the time but it is an illustration of the constitution terms sometimes embracing new instances that fit into traditional territories. so i think that actually, from an originalist point of view, katz is clearly right that wiretapping somebody's conversations is a search. it is a seizure of a conversation. i agree with an astonishing amount of what akil said about the fourth amendment. it is a prohibition on unreasonable searches. not a prohib

one of my aber fourth amended -- is written by justice scalia. there's never a more pure or meaningful text from justice scalia. use ofs a case about the infrared technology to look into people's houses and the question presented was whether that was a search. he said the fact that it was not a technology known at the time does not alter the fact that it is intruding into the areas of the home. it is a search of the home. it matches the literal words of the fourth amendment. i think similarly, to seize somebody's phone conversations is a seizure. sure it was not a technology known at the time, but it is an illustration that the constitution's terms have new instances that fit into new categories. i think from an originalist point of view, he is clearly right, that wiretapping some of these conversations is a search. i actually agree with an astonishing amount. it is a prohibition of unreasonable searches. not all searches require warrants. the fourth of them in itself is not provided an exclusionary. the fourth amendment is traditionally about da

died which left an evenly divided court unable to set precedent in a similar case justice scalia had since been replaced has since been replaced on the court by conservative justice neil who in famously ruled against a trucker who was fired from his job after he nearly froze to death while completing his job crypto markets are on the rise again with the top ten coins all in positive territory monday bitcoin has spiked above ten thousand dollars to ten thousand three hundred an afternoon trading that's a gain of more than ten percent up more than nine hundred dollars and twenty four hours. so will kryptos take off like they did late last year here discusses jeffrey tucker the editorial director of the american institute for economic research jeffrey welcome back i want to get to your op ed in a minute but what do you make of these price moves. it's funny in the kryptos face when the president everyone's happy with their fall and everybody's sad you know we discuss these waves of emotion and it's all fun we all know where this is headed up up up when how much nobody knows for sure

as you noted justice scalia said, like other rights, you can have some restrictions on it.he first amendment classic example, you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater because of the danger imposed by it. people like me believe we ought to be very restrictive in restricting gun rights for law-abiding citizens. >> jen, to you, i hear ken being on the more restrictive side. just so everyone understands, with the heller decision, the notion perhaps people are floating banning a semiautomatic weapon, that door is open, yes, respecting the second amendment but that door is open because of heller. >> absolutely. i think, i'll add to what he said, he's right the supreme court recognized that the second amendment right is available to individuals it's not sort of -- it's not as broad as he would suggest. et's about the individual right to own a handgun in one's home for personal protection. that's what heller spoke to. and heller leaves open the door to regulate and even restrict ban for automatic weapons, like ar-15s. >> part of what is being discussed. ken, to you, looking b

justice scalia said that's not a fundamental right.aid that's not a fundamental right. even when the supreme court said they had the right to keep and bear arms, they specifically said these weapons of war, these military assault rifles, the type of military assault rifles that all of our police commissioners say should not be in the hands of civilians. so many veterans say should not be in the hands of civilians. they are used by the deranged or the angry to go out and gun down human beings as quickly as possible. and mika, thoughts and prayers are fine, but why is donald trump impotent. why is he everyone tent when it comes to this. he is supposed to be man of action. he is letting our children get slaughtered week by week by week and it will happen again. he's letting christians that go to church get slaughtered. paul ryan, donald trump, they're just washing their hands of it. like pilot. letting christians get slaughtered. letting country fans get slau s slaughtered at concerts. i'll say it one more time. there are extreme lobbyist

justice scalia, alternate opinion, we are going to be inspired by him as we make a decision on the definition. that definition is coming this year. the president has shown tremendous courage. >> before we get to an overview of what you have accomplished at epa, i want to mention the fact that you have managed to land on the cover of the weekly standard and the national review, two of the great magazines in our nation, and g coolio -- gq. the fifth most powerful man in washington, d.c. paint a different picture, and i am always reminded of the great protestant to my desk divine, -- great protestant --ine, mr. pruitt: i talked to my team about this quite a bit. these issues ought not be as contentious as they are. republicans and democrats are for clean air and clean water. it is just about, how do we achieve those? when we think about how it has been done over the last seven years -- several years versus how it should be done, partnership with states. states across the country, governors, departments of environmental quality, they have been partners in protecting our water and air. congress ha

next, christopher scalia on his father supreme court justice antonin scalia. next, women marched on washington leader. next on the tvs "after words", christopher scalia, son of the late spring court justice antonin scalia shares his father's speeches on law, faith and virtue. he's interviewed by los angeles time supreme court correspondent david savage. "after words" is a weekly interview program with relevant guest host interviewing a top nonfiction authors about their latest work. >> host: christopher scalia, your father antonin scalia was one of the most powerful writers of the supreme court opinion and he wrote a lot of defense with real zingers, great for people like me quoting him but this is not a book about court opinions but a book about speeches so why speeches? you well, yeah, and he said his court opinions are memorable and i'm often told by law students and reporters that they went to his opinions first for that reason because they were so crisply written and evocative and powerful.

and there is never more pure original meaning actual us than justice scalia. he was relentless on this. it served wonderfully for 30 years on the support. this is a case about the use of infrared technology to look into people's houses and the question presented was whether that was a search and he said the fact that it was not a technology known at the time does not alter the fact that it is intruding into the areas of the home where people it is a search of the home and it matches the literal words of the fourth amendment. i think similarly to seize someone's phone conversation to wiretap is a seizure. it was not a technology know the time but it was an illustration that the constitution the breeze embrace new instances that fit into traditional categories from an originalist point of view capps is right that wiretapping someone's conversation read with an astonishing amount of what it was said about the fourth minute. it's a prohibition on unreasonable searches, not a prohibition on searches. per se and not all searches require warrants and they adopted the

and justice scalia passed away shortly after the oral argument. and a month or so after that the court affirmed the decision below by an equally divided court suggesting that justice scalia would have been the fifth vote. and if his oral arguments were any indication that suggested the way it looked the way it was going is that abud would have been overruled providing public sector of employees that states wouldn't be allowed to require them to pay to agency fees to the agency. so if you're reading the tea leafs it's reasonable to conclude that justice gorsuch is in this driver's seat since he was not on the 4-4, equally di vied court. i haven't delved deeply into this issue if you look at his voting record it suggests he may side with the conservative wing on the court. and that abude may be in trouble. so just to back up a little bit. the case, the petitioner is a man by the name of mark janice, he's a public employee in illinois. he does not like what his union is doing. he's not a member of his union. but every month because of illinois law an

justice scalia's famous 2008 opinion.here, the court notes the second amendment does not apply to just any weapon whatsoever. and there's the keywords. it's not unlimited. that's justice scalia talking, even in the midst of his ruling for handguns. he was clear that other guns can still be banned. >> it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible. some undoubtedly are. >> so here is your second amendment scorecard. the second amendment does present ha protect handguns. it does not protect these ar-15s. every serious expert on the law and second amendment already knows that. pro-gun legal advocates know it too. and we know they know. because they are the ones who have been trying to file all those cases to get the courts to broaden the second amendment to protect ar-15s, which i've just showed you the court declined. the court won't even hear those cases. those are the facts. so as this debate goes on, if someone tells you, we have to live with these weapon

in 2008, it was deadlocked, 4-4, following the death of justice scalia. >> how do you go about courting the king of basketball? pretty creative. >>> a company rented three billboards on a highway near the cavaliers quicken loans arena. it shows a crown on it. it says, complete the process, getting the idea? the final one says loud and clear #phillywantslebron. >> it was a late night idea, let's take out a couple billboards. let's do them in philly, if we do them in cleveland, he'll find out about it. if this in any way helps him come to philadelphia it will be a great investment. >> the company says it hasn't heard from lebron yet. the billboards will be up three months in an in that time hopefully he will see them or someone will tell him about them and maybe he will like the idea. >> can you stand the potential here, nfl super bowl champs, lebron possibly coming to philly. this is insane. this is a position the sixers could really use, glenn. >> that's right. combine him with simmons and embiid, you have a guaranteed trip to the nba finals. >> yep. >> what about the weather, how's tha

tonight book tv is in prime time with a look at afterwards, the son of the late supreme court justice, scalia shared speeches in the book "scalia speaks" and the women's march. linda, discusses "together we rise." interviewed on her book," the new american revolution" and the book "endurance" book tv all this week and prime time on c-span two. epa administration tor fox pruitt and -- conservative political action conference. live coverage 8:00 p.m. eastern on our come pain i don't know network c-span. state governors across the country gathering in washington, d.c. for the annual winter meeting and throughout the day saturday, the national governor association hosting panels to talk about jobs, opioid crisis and ago debris culture and food availability. on the companion network, c sp

there was never a more clear writer then justice scalia. he served wonderfully for 30 years on the supreme court. this was a case about the use of infrared technology to look at people's houses. the question presented was, was that a search? he said, the fact that it was not a technology known at the time does not alter the fact that it is intruding into the -- it is ae home search of the home. and matches the literal words of fourth amendment. to see somebody's phone conversations, to wiretap, is a seizure. it was not a technology known at the time, but is an illustration of the constitution's terms instancesembrace new that fit into traditional categories. , from anhat originalist point of view, it is clearly right that wiretapping somebody's conversations is a search. it is a seizure of a conversation. the fourth amendment is a prohibition on unreasonable searches, not on the searches per say. not all searches require warrants. he is adopted the wonderfully that theive view fourth amendment itself does not provide an exclusionary rule. t

in the on-call decision justice scalia said that it's the words of the statute rather than the concerns of the legislators that drives the interpretation of the statute. >> there have been legislative acts in response to the circuit court decisions, but they have been explicit in indicating their disagreement with those decisions. and changing the law in response to those decisions. i think in this case your argument is that there is no mention of any of the relevant circuit court decisions to the extent that the court decisions are mentioned, our supreme court decisions are mentioned, they are about different decisions and the purpose of the 1991 amendment was to expand the scope of protections rather than to contract event. that's the language, is an? >> yes, your honor. >> could you take a minute to address the change of position you see over the course of the years? >> certainly, your honor. we took a fresh look at the issue much as the court did, much as the christian season case did there we took a look, a new look at that in light in part of the supreme court's guidance over the

. >> caller: about a year or two before justice scalia's staff, there was an immigration case out of arizona about whether the states could also enforce immigration laws. the case was decided that no they couldn't come up with the justice system did and i was wondering how he thought around the fact that the immigration power is in the federal government. >> do you know the answer to that with justice scalia? >> i can't remember, but that case was an example of a doctrine that we call preemption and the notion is if the congress and the administration has made clear they are going to deal with this particular issue then that states cannot intrude and two contradictory things. that is consistent with the principles got a part of what happens is an area where congress has an article one section eight expressly granted power to make the uniform rules. >> i was going to mention that the time it was decided, it was on a state-by-state basis including new york and philadelphia to set their own standards. so these kind of rules arcing is that developed over time. the current chief justice ta

justice scalia authored an opinion. we're going to be inspired by justice scalia as we make the decision on the definition. [applause] that definition is coming this year. so the president has shown tremendous courage there. >> before we get to an overview of what you have been able to accomplish at e.p.a., mr. administrator, i want to mention the fact that you have managed to land on the cover of the weekly standard and the national review, two of the great magazines in our nation. and gq. maybe not one of the best magazines in our nation but named you the fifth most powerful man in washington, d.c. something in the fourth estate in the media paint a little bit different picture. i am always reminded of the great protestant devine that great works have great enemies. and so when the slings and arrows come your way, what is the guiding star that scott: i really believe and i talk to my team. these issues should not be as contentious as they are. republicans and democrats are for clean air and clean water. it's about how

when late justice scalia passed away, the vote was left at a tie. we now expect that the new supreme court justice, neil gorsuch will deliver the win. so what's exactly at stake in this case? this case could decimate unions by greatly reducing the dues that you know downs collect, severely limiting protections. according to the bureau of labor stratsticks, union membership has been steadily declining and has lost 2.9 million members since 1983. organized probusiness efforted have expedited the decline of unions. janus is part of this assault. this is a critical moment in our labor movement, and i believe we need to take action in san francisco now to forestall the impact of a negative decision. this resolution affirms that the city and county of san francisco supports of freedom of all city employees to exercise their voice and dignity on their job in joining together in strong unions. it also urges the mayor and department of human resources to engage in good faith discussions with the city's union, to implement a gold card memory bes membership. it

justice scalia didn't even say it was. well, the majority of americans are on my side.ou live in a bubble. no, they don't. john, political calculus, let's talk about the political calculus here. when it comes to enhanced background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane, to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, 95% of americans tell pollsters they support increased background checks. when you talk about military-style weapons. look, only 4% oppose. 4% are on the side of the nra and the majority of the republican members in the house and senate. 4%. they are 4%. we are the 95%. i speak of we as myself and a lot of other gun owners and nra members and a lot of other republicans and a lot of other conservatives. we are the 95% but john, even assault style bans, those numbers go as high as 75% in a lot of polls. on the upper end you have 79% in then p-- this nra/ipsos poll. it's nra money. i don't understand why somebody would put themselves with the 4% and ignore the 95% in their district. >> wel

then justice scalia wrote for the majority that. a ruling that up held the right to keep a fire a firearm at home did not necessarily preclude other forms of gun control i think that law or remains the case today and i think that it would be a very close case before the supreme court as to whether a restriction on semiautomatic military style weapons would be upheld but i don't think we're going to get that far because i don't think there's going to be a federal law passed restricting so-called assault weapons scott a moment ago you spoke about just how brave these traumatized students have been in their actions in raising their voices in confronting politicians from from house members to senators to even the president something quite disturbing has happened in the wake of the shooting you've had far right wing media outlets you've had people on social media attacking some of these students calling them crisis actors really trading in these conspiracy theories about them do you believe that that is because these students are such a