major law firms. [laughter] jus. ginsburg: i had a strikes against me. -- three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? jus. ginsburg: no one ever thinks my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice. david: when you first got on the courts, were other justices saying we are happy to see you? let's have dinner together. just. ginsburg: justice o'connor was the most welcoming. gave me some very good advice. >> will you fix your tie, please? david: people wouldn't recognize me if my tie was fixed, but ok. just leave it this way. all right. i don't consider myself a journalist. nobody else would consider myself a journalist. i began to take on the life of being an interviewer even though i have a day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? what is it that makes somebody tick? when you went to cornell, your grades were obviously good. you applied to law school at harvard. you got into harvard law school. was the cl

from the harvard law review and the columbia law review, you were flooded with job offers. [laughter] firm in wasn't a single the entire city of new york. i have set i had three strikes against me. i was jewish. firms were just beginning to welcome jews. then i was a woman. killer, i was a mother. my daughter was four years old when i graduated from law school. might take a chance on a woman were not going to take a chance on a mother. >> one of your law professors with pauljudgeship mainieri. was that easy to do because you are a mother? >> he had no qualms about a woman. he had had a woman is a law clerk before. concerned, the southern district of new york was a busy court. would need a law clerk stayed even on a sunday. i found out about this years later. i did not know at the time. give her a chance and if she doesn't work out, there is a , he will in the class jump in and take over. there was also a stick. ,f you don't give her a chance i will never recommend another student to you. that is how it was for women of my vintage. clerkship, you got a position as a law prof

from law school. we welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and we thank them for participating in today's hearing. if you would please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. raise your hand, please. do you wear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of yournge, information and belief, so help you god? you may be seated. let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. please note that each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. accordingly, i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired. ms. carr, you may begin. good morning. >> turn the mic on and speak closely into it. >> yes, chairman nadler and members of the judiciary committee, i th

a law free zone and thus giving criminals the means to operate free of any lawful scrutiny will inevitably propel and expansion of criminal activity. if you remove any possibility that the cops are going to be watching a neighborhood, the criminals already in the neighborhood will commit a lot more crimes. let me address some of the canards that are floating around in this discussion. first it is claimed that law enforcement is asking to impinge on privacy. nothing could be further from the truth. we are not seeking to move the goalposts at all. we are seeking to preserve the degree of privacy to which we have always been entitled under our constitution. it is not a degree of privacy that is absolute and impervious under all circumstances. it is a right to privacy that allows for lawful access when society can demonstrate a sufficiently compelling need. in this regard i was amused to see the impassioned statement of a leading digital rights activist to 2 days ago. it said a secured messenger platform should provide the same amount of privacy as you have in your living room. that's right. w

but can a law actually make that choice.can legislators sacrifice a large number of people to save the lives of an unknown number appointed debates broke out over the limits of the law. hence other places became the chairman of the professional pilots association cockpit in 2005 as the pilot's elected representative he fought for the controversial law to be overturned . we found the idea incomprehensible that a state would claim the right to take the lives of innocent people it meant we need to only be afraid of the kidnappers but also of the state itself even though it was supposed to protect our lives. and least also said shooting down an aircraft would not be an appropriate response and is unlawful according to the principle of proportionality. ground force we couldn't even imagine how that would work germany is a very big so how would the fighters scramble in such a brief period before the plane arrived at even if you shoot it down it was still the question as to where the debris would fall on over a densely populated co

that's exactly what law enforcement is seeking.s you should all know, with a warrant, law enforcement can get access to your living room, both physically and virtually where there is probable cause to do so. ed is also said that the government is seeking some secret backdoor to all data and communications. that sounds very nefarious, but it is false. we are seeking a front door. we would be happy if the companies providing the encryption keep the keys. what we are asking is that some responsible party have the keys so that when we can demonstrate a lawful basis, probable cause that crimes are being committed, we can gain access to that evidence. it also seems to me that the argument of companies that want to deploy warrant proof encryption rests on an unsustainable premise. the companies seem to think that the debate is over once they show that their technology will achieve some incremental increase in privacy, regardless of the impact on welfare of society. but our whole history shows that the extent of the rights has always depen

i went on to a law firm. and judge gorsuch called me once a week saying get your application into the court. and so, i recall collecting the material and standard stuff, resume writing. you send it to all of the justices across the board. i remember being stunned the day i got the phone call to come in an interview with justice sotomayor. there was not that much time to prepare. it is very intimidating. you walk to the court. a grand building. i think most justices have interviewees interviewing both with the clerks and the justice. they have different preferences for how substantive the interview will be. justice sotomayor is known to be fairly substantive. we sat down with the clerks and then the justice. one thing that struck me about her was there was a substantive component to the interview. but there was also a very personal component to the interview. and what she talks about is caring deeply about the clerks. how they are civil with each other. getting along with each other. i think she tries to scree

has not been a problem inabilities to own force the law -- to enforce the law? has there been any extra protection? safety and security of our personnel, officers, and offices, is our primary concern. we have been very focused with our concerns about some of the ugly rhetoric that has been utilized around this issue and the vilification of the men and women of ice and cbp. they are merely enforcing the laws that congress has passed. it is disheartening when it comes from individuals who have the ability to pass laws or change laws if they don't like them. instead, they would rather vilify our officers redoing their sworn duties. one third of our officers are military veterans. they were heroes before they ever strapped on a badge, and they should be given the respect as any other law enforcement officer in this country. yes, i am very concerned. it is dangerous. hopefully, those people that have opinions as to how immigration enforcement should be conducted would do so in a professional and responsible manner. i wonder if you could comment on an issue from earli

lawful access is not just a future problem, it is here now. we in government, law enforcement, victims advocacy, and the tech industry have the power and ability and skills to find a mutually acceptable solution. we have put some of the brightest minds of the country on this issue and we have learned it can responsibly be done. we are not prescribing a particular technical solution. every company is different, and the companies themselves are in the best position to develop lawful access solutions. we all want safe, secure, private data, but we also want safe and secure communities. we can have both. i really do believe that. i hope you have a great conference. i look forward to hearing ideas that come out of today's discussions. thanks. (applause)

lawful access isn't just a future problem. it's here now. so together, we in government, law enforcement, the victims advocacy community, and the tech industry have the power, the ability, and the skills to find a mutually acceptable solution. we put some of the brightest minds in the country on this issue, and we learned that it can responsibly be done. we are not prescribed in a particular technical solution. every company that instituting default encryption is different, and the companies themselves are likely in the best position to develop lawful access solutions. we all want safe, secure, private data. but we also want safe and secure communities. and we can have both. i really do believe that. so i hope you have a great conference. i look forward to ring some of the ideas that come out of today's discussions. thanks. [applause] >> retired general joseph votel former commander of central command speaks today about your security operations in the middle east. he's joining a discussion hosted by the middle east institute in washington, d

as law. about half the provisions in the united states code have been adapted as law. the contextual requirement does require one to give some measure of weight to where the provision is located, what part of title 28 it appears in, what the things are accompanying it -- those are all contextual kinds of arguments, which are perfectly good arguments as a matter of statutory interpretation. they are not as knockdown drag and i like to have our arguments be. i think once you have that kind of authority given to the attorney general, it's perfectly clear that congress meant for the attorney general to appoint officers for prisons but nowhere else, but yeah, that is absolutely the strongest statutory argument out there, no question. likegain, that is kind of talking about the best right tackle on the seattle seahawks. [laughter] lawson: he stinks. well, i hate to call on my son, but he's the only hand in the air. [laughter] professor lawson: come on, people. for asking ay when you're saying the e

we see these laws are working. thanks to new jersey's law, a public employee was quickly able to follow her doctor's orders and return to work in a light duty position. yet while states have improved workplace conditions for thousands of women, job protection and a healthy work environment should not depend on block or location. the pwfa would finally ensure that pregnant workers in every corner of the country stand on equal footing in the workplace. no one should have to choose between her job and a healthy pregnancy. it is time for congress to step up and pass critical legislation. it is long overdue. thank you. rep. bonamici: thank you for your testimony. under committee rule 8a, we will now question witnesses under the five minute rule alternating between parties. i recognize myself for five minutes. ms. durham, i understand you demonstrated to the court your employer was accommodating your similarly situated coworkers, who had similar light duty lifting restrictions, but did not offer the same restrictions to

it also exposed me to areas of law that i had some exposure to her law school but when i did think of was criminal law and with clerking with the board of appeals i realized those that were arguing in front of us that we actually did a trial and the idea over the next few years i could be running a trial in arguing a case in the court of appeals is really intriguing and exciting and pretty quickly after the clerkship ended and went to the southern district of new york that was not on the radar for me i had would not have seen it in the course of clerking. but the other practical effect is the network. it is an extraordinary network as the last panel was discussing among the supreme court clerks but also an extraordinary group of people who choose to clerk and have that remarkable opportunity. the network that flows of that as i encourage my own clerks they cannot see those opportunities that will provide. i have no doubt i would not be in the job i am in except my clerks who spent time in the white house counsel's office. and then talking about impeaching him generally on the side as

he of the law in kentucky a different law in ohio. who would be the value of one federal standard. >> we work in a global cut economy, where we are based is very fortunate to have multistate businesses and corporate headquarters in a region. being able to have the uniformity at the federal loophole is significant. we are committed to working on similar legislation in the future state right across the river which we coverer by southn indiana. there are 27 versions that are outt there in 27 states that hae a version of this. employers and businesses that i represent that have that multistate present, federal uniformity and clarity is significant. >> statement for the record. march oftted by the dimes in support of the legislation introduced. >> that went out objection. i now recognize ranking member of the subcommittee in kentucky for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you. ms. mclaughlin, i certainly concur with chairwomann said. we all want pregnant workers to be treated fairly. your experience and employers have policies to pr

because this emergency law that the government is using is actually a color era emergency law it was established in 1922 and hasn't been yourself. more than 50 years and so this law can actually lead the chief executive to bypass and the legislative process to pass she says necessary and so there are many sectors in the society who are actually criticizing their use of this law human rights organizations law makers and. lawyers course they are also criticizing this law so. if we do what she likes and doesn't have to resort to anyone if she uses this law to act the laws and she basically can bypass the legislature. let's talk about the mosque in particular because this is this house caused particular. amongst people because in hong kong and many protests using a face mask to protect themselves to stop themselves from being identified because they are fearing the retaliation from hong kong among from the chinese government and also actually from there also sent from their companies because in hong kong there are lots of shops and restaurants or even companies they have a lot of interes

aul legislative report, 58 life-affirming laws from their report saying that we are signed into law across 22 states. in the addition -- in the event that roe v. wade is underage -- in the event that roe v. wade is under turn -- is overturned. from leesburg, virginia. caller: good morning. the gentleman who called poverty, he is advocating socialism. i had to say respective -- i have to say respectfully it doesn't work. as a young conservative, i am in a position where i think a woman should choose her best choice. i don't think a man has too much to say, and that is just my opinion personally. at the same time, if an individual does not want to support that program with taxpayer dollars, they should not go toward that. just like a case several months ago i heard on c-span about a does notre a gentleman have to pay their dues into union fees if they do not support that union or the political candidates that the union supports. i do think that is a reasonable position to take, but i just want to make that comment. thank you. guest: sure. abortion is a divided issue in our country still. mos

in large part thanks to russia's own efforts how would you characterize russia's observance of the laws of war in syria on itself and relative to other partners other actors well you can easily imagine i.c.r.c. is not here to judge we kick you late concerns obviously one of the big issues that we have seen recently in yemen in iraq in syria in all the context in the middle east is for instance urban warfare and so one of the big questions today also in the experiences of the past couple of years is always what are what do the classical principles of international humanitarian law distinction proportionality precaution mean when you are confronted with urban contexts so for fear with densely populated areas in which you use modern technology modern weapons and what are you are awfully geishas to precaution and it's obvious that i see or see as the advocate for protection of civilians may not always have the same. appreciation and the same exactly according to judge military operations us military story so it's really about this dialogue between the humanitarian protection perspective and

to preempt state laws. the problem is, the court went very, very deeply into the sec's arguments -- the fcc's arguments for larger preemption, for printing all the states at once, and rejected everything a one of them peered the court said the sink and on the ability isthe sine qua non congressionally delegated authority. and if you do not have that you cannot do it. i'm not gonna say that states will have an easy time, it will be case-by-case. and it is not a slamdunk either way. i think states now will test the bounds of this preemption authority. and they're going to start to pass laws. that to me argues, and we will probably agree on this although we will not agree on how, this argues for a federal law. i completely agree on that. we probably agree on the importance of net neutrality as well. this is not a debate on whether net neutrality is a good thing. concept,ality is a principle and it is the idea that any consumers to be able to access the content they want on the networks that they are using when

the rule of law is strong in this country. people like to focus on the troubles but sometimes we need to step back and not just focus on the forest but the trees. but there are 50 million lawsuits filed every year. that's called the american spirit. and 95 percent are resolved by a trial court without appeal. i was a lawyer a long time. i love being a lawyer you help people solve their problems that they accepted that is reasonably just they had their chance to have their say. but they listen to and that's powerful. with my own court of appeals of the tenth circuit and 20 percent of the continental united states, two time zones a credibly diverse court on any metric you want to take going back to all the way to president johnson we could reach unanimity. 95 percent of the time they were appeal. okay. so what about the supreme court? i said you realize we hear 70 cases a year? those are the hardest cases in the country and the lower courts have disagreed. that's why we take cases so people in california have the same rights and

all the laws of the laws in all for. the basically was initially intended as a temporary solution until east and west germany were reunified to school because it's just that which is historically speaking the basic law was a real stroke of luck the school the authors of the basic core achieve something quite astonishing the things they wrote about fundamental freedoms fundamental rights and the organization of the democratic states are almost unparalleled in how right they are stacked in the west it has served as well for 70 years and in our unified country it's been nearly 30 years. the basic premise from which all else arises is stated right at the beginning article one human dignity shall be inviolable above all this rejected the injustice of nazi rule. in little inflated if it with my head off in 1949 the mothers and fathers of the basic law at least there were 4 women i wanted to use paragraph one article one human dignity shall be inviolable i to make a very clear statement can. arbitrary rule oppression and persec

laws to protect pregnant workers. the americans with disabilities act prevents this discriminat n discrimination, and the pregnancy workers act outlaws discrimination, and a supreme court ruling said that employers must treat pregnant workers equally and fairly, and states including my state kentucky has passed laws to protect the pregnant workers. the equal employment opportunity commission has stated that ada requires employers to accommodate pregnancy-related limitations. the republicans in congress have long supported meaningful and clearly defined protections for the pregnant workers to ensure they are not unlawfully discriminated against as it relates to pregnancy, childbirth or medically-related conditions. we should promote policies in washington to allow a strong family and families to flourish and protect life at all stages. the purpose of america's nondiscrimination laws and the agencies enforcing them is to give all americans equal opportunities to succeed. that being said, overzealous government intervent

law school. back then blacks were not , admitted. he went down to howard law school and he started studying discovered by the dean of howard law school, charles hamilton houston. dean houston was the first african-american editor admitted to the harvard law review. his portrait is the only portrait that fits in the law review building, not barack obama, not all the supreme court justices. just charles hamilton houston. it was not because he was the first african-american editor but because he discovered thurgood marshall. as a dean, he saw the student who was so brilliant, advocate, ntored and he mean him. he graduated top of his class. he could have gone to any law firm, but he went back to baltimore. fresh out of law school he hung up a shingle on a redwood street downtown. he filed a lawsuit against the university of maryland law school for not admitting blacks. he made an argument no one had ever made before. he made the argument no court had accepted before and he won. university of maryland

ginsberg: a professor of literary and artistic property law at columbia law school.plause] david: i understand you and she were the only mother-daughter team to be elected to the harvard law review. is that correct? jus. ginsberg: so far. david you have a son in the : music business? jus. ginsberg: james grew up with a passion for music but no talent as a performer. [laughter] so when he went to the university of chicago he was a disc jockey on the student radio station. then in the years he was dropping in and out of law school he was also making recordings. one day he told us he liked what he was doing much more than his law practice. -- law classes. we said fine, that is what you want to do. today he has a label and his recordings are gems. david: you have any grandchildren? jus. ginsberg: i have four grandchildren, two stepchildren and one great grandchild. [applause] david: what do your grandchildren call you? rbg? [laughter] jus. ginsberg: i am a jewish grandmother so i am called bubbie. david: you were flooded with job offers from the major law firms? [laughte

i would point out that our law that we just passed makes the law -- it does draw a line, and it says that it will apply to all crime that unanimity, will apply to krams that were committed after january 1st, 2019. so to some extend we are talking about at least some retroactivity because we have already made a decision to address it going forward. >> could i pick up on justice gorsuch's question a second? so assume that the sixth amendment requires unanimity. i know you disagree, and assume that our law ordinarily requires incorporation of the states of rights that apply against the federal government. assume ordinarily it would be incorporated. then we get to the apodaca question. seems the me there are two practical arguments for overruling apodaca if you accept such holding. one is there are defendants who have been convicted and sentences to life, 10-2, or 11-1, who otherwise would not have been convicted. that seems like a serious issue for us to think about in terms of ov of overrule. the second is that the ruling question here is rooted in racism, rooted in a desire, apparentl

state law must yield. the other type of conflict is when state law is an obstacle to achieving federal policy. that is going to be the debated here. broadbent should be treated as a telecom service, it should be mandates. the federal law says the opposite of those things. i can talk about this further. there will be a strong case for argument. judge thought there was authority. he thought the majority analysis expressed might implicate his ability -- the fcc's ability. a detailed summary. i will stop there. thank you matt. it sounds like this is one of the bigger issues. many states of introduced legislation, california has passed a law. the court said that the order to state net neutrality laws in advance, should this gives states the confidence to enact their own legislation? >> i can jump in. if i could back up just a little bit. this is a slightly different perspective on how one might -- i'm the director of the open technology institute. we were parties to the case. we were intervenors in support of t

local law enforcement, and i believe the number of lies loft of local law enforcement would far exceed this, and so i would like to just and my time with a plea for care and concern for all federal employees, all law enforcement. we have not even talked about those down at the border. i've been down there and i know they are receiving threats on a consistent basis, and i want to make sure we keep all of them in mind as we work to make our environment safer. are you of my time. >> thank you, mr. harris. the chair recognizes mr. low and all for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman, and thank you to all the panelists. i want to start with the testimony which stated, as i read, that as the close of fiscal year 2018, the number of field law enforcement officers and each of the four land management agencies has declined since fiscal year 2013 and that decline makes it more difficult to protect federal employees. but you first elaborate on the impact that these declines of had an employee safety? >> it is one of a number of factors that are impacted the federal land management agencies

this is the law and from berlin another tense day in hong kong where thousands defying the government and a fresh court ruling pro-democracy activists challenge the ban on wearing face masks but their efforts failed in the high court today despite the verdict they are marching with their maps for more freedom also on the program. the drive to get more women running for office in a male dominated society as tunisia goes to the polls we hear from the campaign empowering female lawmakers. among for joining us we begin in hong kong where pro-democracy activists are brushing aside a legal setback to protest an emergency law banning facemask tens of thousands have been braving the rain to defy the decree even after hong kong's high court refused to grant an injunction blocking the ban the church chief executive imposed the measure on friday she said it was needed to prevent more violence pro-democracy activists hope the law can still be overturned when the high court's hears their petition against the measure later this month. after the court ruling pro-democracy lawmaker said the facemask

we are a nation of laws.n one hand, the inclination is to enforce our laws, on the other hand the humanitarian aspect cannot be ignored. how should we treat this? we continue to debate it. need a-- we desperately solution. i am a nonresident fellow at a immigration policy institute, and one of the things we do is debate what a good immigration policy would be. what would that look like? one possibility is it would involve advanced planning. what are the country's economic needs going forward? when we create a five-year plan, plane plan for -- 10 year for who we invite into our country. what kind of skills they would have, and how with the skills of incoming immigrants mesh with our desire to be humanitarian and except the relatives of those already here, the family reunification element of previous legislation. a tremendous number of very hard questions for our country to answer. in aly we are enmeshed ferocious debate which, because of the contemporary spirit of nativism and xenophobia, has become very embit

elite law school. harvard provides a vastly disproportionate number of supreme court clerkships. many judges are their friends. what do you say to the criticism terribly is not a meritocratic institution but rather more of an elitist one? nobody wants to answer the question. will not benure and nominated for anything so i will say -- of course it is not a meritocracy completely. it is about connections. hardly in my opinion which does not mean you can not break out of it. and i think some justices are working hard to hire outside of that. some of it has to do with the belief, which may or may not be true, that these law schools do produce really good lawyers and eight today screen through other judges. >> a half truth. [laughter] , we all probably could tell in candid moments if we were not thinking of our futures, the connections that were developed at the schools. >> the one thing i would add is -- i am someone who went to law school not really knowing what it meant to be a lawyer and not really know

that is not by provision acceptable under the law. forcing legal businesses to operate all cash is dangerous. i saw this when i joined an oregon business man on a trip to our state capital to pay his tax bill. he had his quarterly payment of $70,000 in a backpack. he turned it over on the table and it spread out across the whole table and some of it fell onto the floor. that is a lot of money to carry around in a backpack. we then drove to the state capital one had to go through three levels of security for him to be able to pay his taxes. as you approach the building, there were police cars, patrol members, and then they would tell you which florida go to, and then you had another set of security in the rumor you deposited it, because millions of dollars of cash were flowing in from all corners of the state. this is one of the most absurd things i have ever witnessed, and it created there are a lot of costs that reverberate back to the industry that are really unfair and unacceptable and dangerous. we are putting safety at risk when

law clerks. the justices tend to hire from the same small number of court of appeals judges, many of whom are their friends. so what do you say to the criticism that this is not a terribly meritocratic institution, it's something of an elitist one? >> nobody wants to answer -- [laughter] >> i have tenure and i'm not going to get nominated or anything, so i'll say of course it is not a meritocracy entirely. it is a set of connections. it's horribly that way, in by opinion -- in my opinion, which doesn't mean you can't break out of that. and some of the justices now, i think, are working hard to hire from a diversity of law schools in some sense. and some of it, i think, has to do with the belief -- which may or may not be true -- that these law schools do produce really good lawyers and that they today at least screen through -- >> half true. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> nobody got my joke. >> so i think, i mean, we all probably could tell in candid moments if we weren't thinking of dar

we don't ask any law enforcement agency to enforce federal immigration law. we merely ask law enforcement agencies to honor ice detainers, which until recently most agencies did for over half a ce. hold that person for brief period of time, notify us when they are getting ready to be released, and turn them over to us in the safe confines of her detention facility. our detainers are issued based on probable cause. the exact same standard that every law enforcement agency in the u.s. operates under. the fact is that 70% of the civil arrests that i.c.e. makes our local jails and state prisons across the country. but we used to make more. before sanctuary laws or policies prevented us from doing so, leaving us with no choice but to expend significant resources to locate and arrest criminal aliens and other immigration violators in the community. it is less effective, it is more disruptive, and it makes us less safe. there will be criminals we don't find, and often when we do it is after they've been arrested for another subsequent criminal violation. these are p