the laws modeled after successful laws in nevada and i want to thank senator cortez masto. thank you for you did as attorney general in nevada which you continue to do my good friend senator leahy has been working on these things for a long time and thom tillis representative david thrown. there you are. i was looking around and i couldn't see you come i apologize and by the way david worked closely with our special guests here today the widow of the montgomery county police officer whose paint full experience helped inspire this bill. every day our nation's police officers answer the call to confront scenes that can leave them traumatized. it's not fundamentally different than folks on the battlefield but a lot of people come home without any physical wounds but with post-traumatic stress after responding to terrible incidents in the same happens with their law enforcement. conducting homicide scenes in child abuse cases may confront these situations. we need to help them recover on the things that their work can inflict. these rules are not different as the military in th

to enforce texas law.there is an agent who can enforce the law in part or in whole and they are sued than everyone else in the enforcement chain is enjoined. so every private citizen here has been deputized by the state to enforce this law for the bounty. then, why would not an injunction against the ag bar those citizens from going into court? the district attorneys or police officers from arresting people once the order has been issued. or district attorneys from prosecuting for violation of the law that a court has found unconstitutional. and so, the attorney general the representative of the state is not legal. >> two points or honor or else a one on the attorney general side one on the private litigants cyber on the private litigant side there is no deputization of individuals. >> assume i disagree. because you did not answer to my satisfaction justice thomases point that i have never seen a tort that does not give you redress for your harm pretty gives you redress for bringing the suit. and whether y

can enforce this law. whether it's ordinary citizens, the attorney general, state licensing officials, clerks of court or as shelley recognized the court system that would enforce a restrictive covenant demanding segregation. why aren't we in exactly that same position? >> they would be bound if they could satisfy the test of rule 65 which says they have to be acting in active concert. >> why? each of them is acting under the directives of the state law so why aren't they acting like the state? >> i respectfully disagree with that characterization. >> i know you disagree. >> i'm going to explain why i disagree with it. the state is anyway directing the activity, the state in that directing the activity of these private individuals. this date has passed a law that gives them the option to sue and washed its hands of the matter. there is no joint participation with the state in their decision -- >> how is that any different from there being state action when a prosecutor exercises a discriminatory challenge?

states around the country have similar laws in many stand poised to pass copycat laws as well.se restrictions and laws make abortion almost completely inaccessible and that communities of color in low income families the hardest. people who work hourly jobs already have children or live miles away from an abortion provider based impossible decisions and often insurmountable obstacles inviting these time, money and support to access care. all of these steps and decisions take time, pushing people later into their pregnancies and making care it more to access and more expensive. sb-8 is only exacerbated the situation where the need for abortion is not disappeared in texas, even as the number of abortions provided in texas has dropped by an estimated 50%. people are now seeking care out-of-state traveling hundreds more miles, and take eight more days off work and spending much more money. all of this to get the care they need. the care they have a constitutional right to access. the care that is integral to their dignity and fundamental freedom to live their lives on their own ter

read the wisconsin law.e law, but he was within the rights that the state affords. you can criticize the law. you should. he didn't violate it. it's a more relevant question to ask -- and i know you're not going to like this. but if you want to talk about the law, have you heard anybody ask why the third person he shot, the man with the gun who was chasing him and pointed it at him and came at him, why he escaped all police scrutiny? none of the people who were angry about this verdict see anything curious about that situation. justice is blind, right? so, it should be blind to politics as well, right? again, i'm not happy. there's nothing to be happy about here. today's verdict of not guilty doesn't mean the actions on august 25th for innocent. they weren't innocent by all indications. joseph rosenbaum, anthony huber, they're dead. their lives cut short, their families ruined. dying because you went to protest a police shooting is not what this country's about. it's also not what happened. it wasn't protest

do you look to the 1920's when all of these felon laws were passed, as well as public purpose laws of exactly the same kind as new york? so one question is how far up do you look? the other question, what sense of flexibility do you look? i think that this is an example of that. no, we're not going to ask for an exact analog because we realize sense the world has changed and registry schemes are very different because regulatory interests are very different. if we tried to copy history we'd find ourselves the only thing that a state could do is tell people, you know, you can't carry concealed, you have to carry it open. >> so justice kagan, let me give you an example how i think that the court can use history in this context. i'll go to the georgia statute, none against georgia. that was a statue on its face to carry, it didn't say open, it didn't say concealed. the court that analyzed that, reversed vacated the indictment of somebody under the statute because the statute didn't specify and they didn't think that that person had carried concealed. but when they looked at it, they inte

law, family law and reproductive rights and justice. i also serve as the faculty director of the berkeley center on reproductive rights and justice. i am here today to ask plane how abortion restrictions and bans , and texas sb 8, disproportionately affects women of color, especially black women. for years, the supreme court has upheld roe v. wade, affirmed that a person has a woman has a right to perform an abortion before viability without undue interference from the state. the court in planned parenthood versus casey made clear that a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before viability is a rule of law in a component of liberty we cannot renounce. texas senate bill 8, which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, violates the central edibles of ro. it constitutes a near total ban of abortion, manning abortion before may people even know they are pregnant. it is unconstitutional. nevertheless, sb 8 is in effect and harming texans in need of abortion care for over two months. this is solely because it leaves enforcement to priv

with that concession dooms new york's law which makes it a crime for a typical law-abiding new yorker to exercise that constitutional right. this court labeled the very few comparable laws that restricted all outlets for carrying firearms outside the home for self-defense outliers that were rightly condemned in decisions. new york likens its law to a restriction on weapons insensitive places but the difference between a sensitive place law and new york's regime is fundamental. it's the difference between regulating constitutionally protected activity and attempting to convert a fundamental constitutional right into a privilege only and joined by those that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a government official that they have an atypical need for the exercise of that right. that isn't how constitutional rights work. carrying a firearm is a fundamental right. it is not some extraordinary action that requires an extraordinary demonstration of need. they seek nothing more than their fellow citizens and 43 other states and those include some of the more popular in the country. those

he pled not guilty to the charges, and then turned the law on law enforcement, suing the officers toying against him in federal court. kacey proctor volunteered to represent one officer. the lawsuit was dropped, but it sent a message. >> proctor: i could tell you for a fact that two of the police officers that were sued over the second amendment preservation act in ripley county told me that, as soon as they can i'm afra that 're gog uff. makeliceicthisnts to wt todo it. ( gun firing ) >> o'donnell: missouri state senator eric burlison and state representative jered taylor co- sponsored the second amendment preservation act. they say there are plenty of missouri law enforcement officers who support the law and are not having any issues. those having problems, they say, don't yet understand it, or are receiving poor advice. >> jered taylor: i think there's bad information. i think that they're getting bad information. if you ask ten different attorneys, they're going to give you 15 different answers on any number of issues. >> o'donnell: some of the law enforcement that we spoke with

the right to review laws and the argument is about whether this is a law that can be reviewed, and ifwhich court and how. justice kavanaugh is a pivotal vote as ken pointed out. from this morning's questioning, there seems to be good reason to speculate that both justices avenue gnaw and barrett known opponents of abortion, nonetheless, might take a very narrow view of the propriety of the texas statute and find because it is an intentional scheme designed to buy late this principle of judicial review, and, of course, as you point out, this expansion that this same scheme could be used, for instance, for religious rights or for gun rights that they might join the folks on the court who would block the law from staying in effect while litigation was ongoing. it's important to point out that this is not about the substance of texas ee law. it's simply about whether it will be enjoined while litigation is ongoing. >> so i think understandably much of our attention is focussed on the trump appointed justices. right? you've got justice kavanaugh and gorsuch and amy coney barrett. in the la

where the enforcer of the law decides which laws they will enforce?>> well, senator, actually there is quite a bit of discretion in policing and there are decisions made frequently based on resources available about which laws will be enforced and how they will be enforced. this is especially been the case during covid, when the ability to even put people into jail safely -- >> so a police officer or an ice agent can decide which laws to enforce as a matter of their discretion? >> there are -- senator, there are certainly our circumstances where police officers are trained and in fact encouraged to use their good discretion in the manner in which they enforce laws. >> are you familiar with the concept of pull and push factors when it comes to illegal immigration? for example, the push factors of poverty, violence, just people wanting to come to the united states for a better life, but also the poll factors, which include the perception that there will be no consequences associated with illegal immigration? do you agree with me that the decision by sec

enforce state law.n shelley versus kramer being the most prominent example of that. can you fill in the gaps there and explain to me how we should think about the ex parte young language in light of how we conceptualize state court enforcement of private civil suits? >> i think the most straightforward way to apply ex parte young is too loud relief under ex parte young is against the -- is to allow relief under ex parte young. it is about stopping the adjudication. >> i think the question was getting at, to take the point, are the clerks subsumed within the language in ex parte young? i want to hear your answer of why we should not do that? >> that language establishes commencement of suits which i think that language supports relief against the clerks. versus whether courts should restrain cases brought before it. it would mean, that would refer to the judges here. in subsequent decisions, there are instances where the court has recognized in cases where relief against a judge, congress recognizes in s

but that dooms new york's law which makes it a crime for a typical law-abiding new yorker to exercise that constitutional right. the court labeled the very few comparable laws that restricted outlets for procuring firearms outside the home the outliers that were rightly condemned in the decisions. new york likens its lot to a restriction on weapons and sensitive places that the difference between that is fundamental and the difference between regulating constitutionally protected activity and attempting to fundamental constitutional right into a privilege that can only be enjoined by those that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a government official that they have a typical need for the exercise of that right that's not how constitutional rights work carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right it is not an extraordinary action that requires an extraordinary demonstration of need. this is the most populous cities in the country. those states like new york limit the firearms and sensitive places but do not prohibit carrying for self-defense in any loca

of the law. the state never told the jury this is my interpretation of the law until we objected. >> i think that's what was explained in the parenthetical. but the state does -- i will -- state needs to clarify this is the argument based on the law that will be charged and what the law that will be charged and make sure that we're clear about what the law is that is being charged. i'm not -- there was a debate about this on friday. and i'm not going to reignite that debate in front of the panel. >> we're fine with the -- what the court's decision was on the contemporaneousness of the events. the charge is great. it is the state's argument about what that means that is flawed. and it is fatally flawed. >> the state has the right to -- just like the defense had the right to argue that what escape means is, escaping whatever this temporal period is, i understand the state to be arguing the same thing in a much more limited temporal period. i think the state has the right to do that. the state needs

first, is texas responsible for this law? second comic in the united states sue to hold texas to account? and food, is the injunctive relief available. and the answer is yes down the line. texas is responsible for the constitutional violation here. it enacted a law that clearly violates the court's precedents. it is designed asen a law to thwart judicial review by offering bounties to carry out the slave enforcement function, and it structured this enforcement proceeding to be so burdensome and such significant liability that they show the exercise of the constitutional right altogether. the united states has a manifest sovereign interest in suing to address the violation. sb8 is a brazen attack on the branches of the federal government. it's an attack on the authority of the court to say with the law is and to have the judgment respected a across the 50 state. and it's an attack on congress' determination that there should be access to preenforcement review in federal court to avindicate federal rights. the united states may

highly visible presence of law enforcement. a very overt and public security presence in and around district of columbia and state capitols around the country. what did we see reflected on social media and extremist platforms, cognizance of those security measures and reluctance to come to washington because those planning acts of violence viewed it as a trap being set for their arrest or viewed it as not the right time to come and engage because of security presence. so our analysis has focused much more on understanding when there may be a potential act of violence and then taking steps, sometimes very visible steps and public steps to create physical security measures that serve as a deterrent. >> chairman schiff. >> ranking member crawford. >> thank you mr. chairman. actually would have some questions about recent open source reporting about an october 29th isis threat and unidentified mall in northern virginia. i'll save those for secure setting. but i would like to ask you director langden which fbi headquarters element h

enforcing laws. no texas executive official enforces s.b.-8 either and so no texas executive official may be enjoined. petitioners then turn to state court judges and state court clerks and apparently in this court now narrow their focus to state court clerks but even they don't suggest that either judges or clerks act on lawfully in the ordinary course by a judean case pursuing a complaint. so petitioners harms are not fairly traceable to any unlawfully, to unlawful behavior by state court judges or clerks. and this court recognized in ex parte young itself that such an injunction would be a a violan of the whole scheme of our government. state judges are presumed to faithfully apply federal law and this court's decisions. if they do not, this court may exercise appellate review. that is exactly how federal constitutional defenses are presented and adjudicated all the time. if congress believes it needs to expand access to the lower federal courts in order to protect petitioners rights, and that is

the law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws to all persons. that is what they wrote. think that guarantees equal protections of the law. it took a civil war for this country to win. this may be the most radical guarantee in all of the constitution, and maybe in all of human history. susan: randy barnett, enlighten us a little more about this thought of how radical it is for not only our own constitution, but perhaps any constitution in history. randy: well, what we have here is a provision that protects the fundamental rights of each and every citizen the privileges of citizenship, as well as the natural rights or from the -- or fundamental rights of each and every person from being deprived. and it creates two avenues of redress. if that is to happen, the first is the courts, because section one of the 14th amendment is an injection to the courts. it is a higher law that the courts must enforce when confronting an inferior law, like a statute that is in conflict with it. section five of the 14th amendment creates an enumerated power in congress to create remedies to

that being said we are here with a texas state law in front of us with the law currently in effect andaving the lives of unborn babies. women and babies deserve better than to be told her only option is abortion. many pro-life groups reach out toal pregnant women abortion does not help women. after saying that i have a couple of questions. thank you for being here. thank you for the time you took to share do you characterize elective abortion is healthcare? >> it is not spent does that reflect what happens to a baby? >> is healthcare? absolutely not. >> and those that vigorously objected into those duly elected officials to protect unborn babies and at that point when a beating heart can be protected how early can the fetal heartbeat be protected quick. >> frequently as early as between six and eight weeks are there any other things you could tell us about a baby at that gestational age? >> at that point you can see the beginnings of their arms and hands and legs and feet hearing the heartbeat in the formation of their head and features we are talking about a human being. life is not f

the law's modeled after successful laws in nevada i want to thank senator cortez. thank you for what you did as attorney general in nevada and what you tip to do. my good friend, senator leahy, who has been working on these things for a long time. and todd young and tom till list, representative david trone and reschenthaler. there you are. i couldn't see you. i apologize. and by the way, david worked closely with our special guest here today. angela bomba, widow of montgomery county police officer, thomas. whose faithful experience helped inspire this bill. every day our nation's police officers answer the call and confront scenes that can take a toll on them as well and leave them traumatized. it's not fundamentally different than folks in the battlefield. a lot of people come home without physical wounds but come home with post traumatic stress. and responding to terrible incidents. the same happens for our law enforcement officers. arriving at homicide scenes. handling child abuse cases. they confront these situations, they need -- we need to help them recover

i mean, law is history. in mcdonald, we had professors of history, and they all said that it was wrong. you have read the briefs here. i do not know. you read the briefs of the historian of the air force, and she says it is this way, the other says it is the other way, how do we deal with that? this is a wonderful case for showing both sides, so i am not sure how to deal with the history. and my other question is i am not sure what new york does. we talk about outside new york city, new york says we have about 90,000 licenses to carry concealed weapons, or maybe 40,000 or 10,000, but there has been no trial, preceding, so, how are we supposed to find out, a, what the history is, just my minor question. there was a lot of debate on that. but, second, how are we supposed to know what we are talking about in terms of what new york does, including one of your clients, if they have a license to carry a concealed weapon? so there concealed weapon license is all over the place, so what are we supposed to do about t

are you aware of any law enforcement, with where where the enforcer of the law decides which laws they will enforce? >> well, senator, actually, there is quite a bit of discretion in policing. and decisions based on resources about which laws will be enforced and how they'll be enforced. especially been the case during covid, when they put people in to jail. >> so, police officer or ice agent can decide which laws to enforce as a matter of discretion? >> there are certainly circumstances where police officers are trained and, in fact, encouraged to use their good discretion in the manner in which they enforce laws. >> are you aware of the concept of pull and pushback? for example the pushback of poverty, violence, just people wanting to come to the united states for a better life but also the pull factors, which include a perception that there will be no consequences associated with illegal immigration. do you agree with me that decision to no longer detain or deport people who entered illegally is a pull factor, which encourages more people to make that long, dangerous trip? >> senato

law and provides relief based on that state law. but do you think a judge is enforcing a law when the judge merely begins to adjudicate the case? mr. hearron: i think one way of potentially looking at it is that by requiring, so, in a sense, and one way of looking at it is by requiring litigants to be in court and requiring them to make filings and appear in court, it would, because, here, it would be multiplied in courts . justice alito: i mean, really? i mean suppose a legislature enacted a statute that said henceforth people of a certain race may not make any public statement, and someone brings suit under that. the judge begins to enforce that just by entertaining the suit? mr. hearron: i think, in - justice alito: -- even if it's certain that at the end of the case the judge is going to say no, this is an invalid -- this is an unconstitutional statute? mr. hearron: i think, in certain circumstances, that even the -- in a situation like s.b. 8, where the point is the filing of the suit and the point is the making you appear in c

ground law.ates that have it. there were some that had court-ordered stand your ground initiatives. 32 states that have added open carry in this century. the combination of open carry, stand your ground, you seem to think maybe the debate about guns ought to turn into public safety as well. >> first of all, there's inherent conflict when you have stand your ground laws in open carry states where you have political division. as reverend sharpton pointed out, voting rights and police reform won't have any progress without activism. when you have activism you'll have people showing up with guns and situations will get volatile enough for people to begin firing. what stands out to me is not the existence of the laws so much as the fact that people fundamentally don't understand them. when i hear the commentary about the rittenhouse verdict, it demonstrates that people fundamentally don't understand the laws as relates to self-defense. this was a winnable trial. >> you think it was a winnable trial? i

and if the law can go — law constitutional? and if the law can go forward, - law constitutional?aw constitutional? and if the law can go forward, what do | law constitutional? and if the i law can go forward, what do you think that means in terms of the country as a whole? it think that means in terms of the country as a whole? if the court decides _ the country as a whole? if the court decides with _ the country as a whole? if the court decides with texas - the country as a whole? if the court decides with texas than | court decides with texas than the suit cannot go forward. if they side with the abortion providers in the suit can go forward what i think it means is that the supreme court realises that they do not want to allow other states to do what texas did and i don't mean in respect to abortion, i mean in respect to abortion, i mean in respect to any constitutional right where a state passes a law, let's say it was a right to bear arms, to have guns. let's say a democrat state like california said, you know what, nobody is allowed to own guns in california but were, as a

this law, this law meets that point. for most of the 20th century we led the world by significant margin because we invested in ourselves. somewhere along the way we stopped investing in ourselves. we risk losing our edge as a nation. china and the rest of the world are catching up, in some cases passing us. our infrastructure used to be rated the best in the world. this is not a joke. the best in the world. according to world economic forum, we now rank 13th in the world in terms of infrastructure. well, we're about to turn things around in a big way. for example, because of this law, next year, it will be the first year in 20 years that american infrastructure investment will grow faster than china's, for example. and we'll once again have the best roads, bridges, ports, and airports. and we are building again and moving again. folks, when you see these projects start in your hometowns, i want you to feel what i feel. pride. pride at what we can do together as the united states of america. and as some, you know, i thin

think about the law of the books. that was a slave law. until states, particularly southern states, do an audit of their laws, to purge white supremacist from their books who have always have these scenarios. i live in the state of mississippi, i understand the tool of race and how it involves the south, why he was doing in that community was trying to use the tool of race. i wish there was a way he could be sanctioned for doing that, but unfortunately there is probably nothing to sanction under georgia's laws. it is unfortunate that he would do that, but for african americans, we are relieved that we had a decision in this case that was just and the families of ahmaud arbery can rest that their child, their child did not go unaccounted for. those three individuals are not being held accountable. they have used to think about what they did. >> the question you and i had after the convention of derek chauvin, is in addition to there being, their deaths being accounted for, do these verdicts have any impact on the way others may act? and the

the illinois law is one of a number of such laws across the country that protect people. in this instance, if employees do not have to choose between their faith and their work, but really for all of us as americans, many states have these protections so we are not coerced into making these kinds of decisions that are really impossible decisions, trying to choose between something as important as our faith and our profession. host: the governor of illinois trying to amend that law and response to this lawsuit and other concerns about the mandate and the defense of those concerns, pointing to that act. a spokesperson saying that act was never intended to allow people to avoid public health guidance and jeopardize workplace safety during a global pandemic. the administration supports efforts to clarify the law so it is not being misinterpreted by fringe elements. guest: i think this law is especially important at times like this. the constitution does not take a vacation when we are in the midst of a pandemic. it is in the hardest moments that we need the protection of the

>> not to this extent -- >> but do you agree that there are laws, defamation laws, gun control laws, rules during the pandemic about the exercise of register that discourage and chill the exercise of constitutional protected liberties? >> yes. >> and that they can only be challenged after the fact? >> i'm not sure all of those laws that could only be challenged after the bank account fact, but certainly there are some. >> there are certainly some instances where that's true. >> yes. >> so there's line drawing between those cases and your cases in your mind? >> yes. >> and on the relief. am i understanding that relief against the clerks is sufficient for your purposes? >> i think that it is -- it would go most of the way to getting the relief that we need in order for abortion providers to begin providing again. we think it's appropriate for a declaretory judgment against the judges, but i think that relief against the clerks -- >> okay, you agree previously, they're under obligation, under state law to file everything that comes in without looking at or judging its contents, right? >

outside of law school classrooms. what i do in the book is try to draw on some of the resources we have within constitutional law. lots of other countries do things differently and approach rights conflicts very differently. and in a nutshell rather than a centralizing rights and thanks rights conflicts about who the constitution favors and who it doesn't or who should win and who should lose , complex require the same kind of resources that we use an ordinary political conflict. of mediation trying to understand the perspective of others. there are ways of working that entire conversation about rights. i look forward to talking more about that over the next hour. >> thank you jamaal. so, you hear a lot of people talk about rights on the three of us all teach constitutional law so we hear law students talking a lot about rights. what you hear a lot of these days are people all over the country, americans think they have a right. people save a right not to be vaccinated. i've a right to vote. i have a right to have an

society chapter at cardozo law school, and immediately after law school she , thrust herself into washington life, becoming in rapid succession a lawyer in private practice, an assistant united states attorney, a top investigator, deputy solicitor general of the house of representatives, general counsel for the senate whip, author of two best-selling books about the clintons -- not favorable, i must say [laughter] and a regular and remarkably successful legal commentator on television. barbara saw in the federalist society a reflection of herself. she was a passionate believer in individual liberty, private enterprise, and limited government. she had an insatiable appetite for ideas, debate, and intellectual jousting. barbara enjoyed mixing it up on virtually any subject, and she was very, very good at it. she was outspoken, articulate, and it must be said, brash. she could and would take on anyone in any new on any issue with little or no advanced she -- or no advance notice. she was quick, with a rapier-like wit. i told her once that some thought she was opinionated. [laughter] she thought

and instruct the law. they have the right to presence the evidence as see it, to take the law as they see it. the other side did it. it's common. this is nothing more to try to obstruct, take the prosecution off of her game. make the jury think maybe she's lying because she's scoring points with the jury. that's how i see it. >> sara, what do you think? >> yeah, i agree with her. often, which we don't have much to go by, we sort of grasp at every opportunity to distract and, you know, to try to throw the prosecutor off of her momentum. and i think some of this is what is going on. but with respect to the defense attorneys, i do think that roddie's attorney was very effective. i think he completely dismantled the charges after his client removed him and sort of distanced him from the mcmichaels duo. he never should have been charged here, stephanie. i think he was a witness. you've got the two mcmichaels and you've got roddie. i think roddie is an acquittal, or at least it should be. the mcmichaels on the o

is by law and things dangerous to enforce criminal law and civil courts to replace public prosecutors with treatments litigators in criminal court is there for a reason they require a higher standard of proof in this important unanimous jury verdict to assure that if we are going to use the government power to injure someone other than deprive them of freedom of property, it has to be done with these standards and safeguards are not entirely some of the attic to the opponents of the bill the enforcement mechanisms of this bill is my eye i have. the supreme court is considering that now and rightly so we may like their decision or we may not like the decision that if we don't like it, where the congress, it is our job to produce legislation to object are but is not clear to me what we're doing here today, except trying to being in a ring and program pressure to the court to politicize his deliberation. i don't have a question because they appear to be incapable of responding in any other fashion other than repeating predetermined soundbites. >> is the first time my lifetime that i hear

be personally opposed to abortion yet strike down a law like the texas law. do justices separate what they personally believe from what the law calls them to do? >> they are a little bit different things, there are cases in which a judge and justice barrett wrote about this, as a law student. about death penalty question, in this case, a judge is sometimes part of the process, especially if you are a trial judge. in those cases, her solution was, which i think is great, if your religious beliefs have strong beliefs in the case, and it conflicts with the law, you have to recuse yourself, you don't put your own beliefs above the law which you have worn to withhold. in the case of abortion it is a little bit different, the state is not saying, we're going to perform the abortion in this case, they are simply saying can this law stand, justice scalia said it is not about whether i believe in abortion but if the of constution talks about abortion. -- constitution talks about abortion, it does not, that means it is left to the state, that is something that supreme

she also serves as an adjunct professor after law at michigan state college of law. intellectual property and trademark law. previously worked for de paul college of law. received her b.a. from university of chicago, her m.a. from american university in cairo. and j.d. from de paul. james snowden. association represents global internet on matters of public policy. mr. snowden was chief operating officer at ntca, internet and television --. also served in federal communications commission as chief of consumer and government affairs bureau from william mary. senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much. dvs health is a great growing and successful rhode island company shown leadership in many issues including refusing to sell tobacco products as part of its commitment to public health. online marketplaces have been an important part of every day life in the covid shut down but they present convenient avenues for organized theft and crime. mr. dougan is at the vanguard of investigating and combatting these crimes. for decades fought. he's a natural leader in retail loss p

it's been signed into law. a major piece of this legislation requires fund collected to be deferred and nonprosecution agreements be deposited into the criminal victims' fund which had been projected to reach a ten-year low. since this bill has become law, have any funds from deferred or nonprosecution agreements been deposited into the crime victims fund, and if not, why not? >> senator, the fix was something we sought and we're grateful for your support and for your introduction of it. we acted immediately after it was passed and something like north of $200 million has already been deposited in the fund thanks to that act. we now project that the funds should be liquid all the way through the end of 2022. >> thank you. and we can review it after that, because i think you and i would both agree we want to have long term sustainability in this fund. >> absolutely. >> let's work together on that. now, there's been some discussion here and elsewhere about the larry nasser investigation. the chairman had the very

wade is the law of the land, the new texas law is grotesquely unconstitutional. the state of texas defended its new law at the supreme court today, by insisting that the texas legislator outsmarted the federal government and the united states supreme court by writing a law that empowered citizens to enforce the law, and therefore no one has a right to sue the government of texas to block a law that the government of texas is actually not technically in power to enforce. here is what solicitor janitor -- elizabeth prelogar said to the court. >> across the arguments this morning, texas position is that no one can sue. not the woman whose rights are most directly affected. not the providers who have been chilled in being able to provide those women with care, and not the united states in the suit. if that is true, if the state can just take the simple mechanism of taking its enforcement authority and giving it to the general public, backed up with a bounty of $10,000 or $1 million, if they can do that, then new caught no constitutional right is safe. no constitution

law school. our second speaker ajid pai is a nonresident fellow at the american enterprise institute where he studies issues about technology and innovation, telecommunications, regulatory policy and market based incentives for investments in broadband deployment. he is also a partner at searchlight capital partners, a global investment firm. he graduated with honors from harvard university and the university of chicago law school. our third speaker is professor victoria nurse. she is the wentworth professor of law at the georgetown university law center here. she is also the director of the law school's first center on congressional studies. she is one of the nations leading scholars on statutory interpretation, congress and the separation of powers. in 2015 and 16, she served as chief counsel to the vice president of the united states. she also served as an appellate lawyer in the department of justice and special counsel to the senate judiciary committee. she graduated from stanford university

it is common-law.he idea is that if somebody from massachusetts goes to pennsylvania, pennsylvania has to afford that person all of those same basic privileges and immunities. can't treat them as aliens. that was a basic idea. what's more, states have to treat all of their citizens -- think now of the freed men, which are being denied those rights under the black codes -- they have to treat all of their own citizens in the same way. so you can't treat your black citizens as aliens either. everybody is entitled to that same set of fundamental privileges and immunities on an equal basis. i don't actually think that allows judges to say, here is something i think should be a privilege and immunity. it is, what are those that are long recognized mostly common-law base rates? i was giving a talk on this. the newspaper that morning had headline that said something like, two people have a right to engage in cloning themselves? -- do people have a right to engage in cloning themselves? i began to talk about it

full force to laws must be given to laws that punish modern-day slavery while facilitating trade for companies who do business responsibly. i live in a city close to the u.s. border with mexico and consider myself lucky to have visited those borders many times. it is essential to recognize what we think of as the border is not homogenous and there is no one solution that will provide us with perfect border security. if confirmed, i will do what i've always done in my professional career, which is to uphold the law. if i will expect, without exception, all agency personnel be conscientious, fair, and humane when enforcing the law. more than a few colleagues have asked me what are you thinking. why would i choose to take on this important and challenging responsibility of leading cbp at this moment? here's my answer, the same answer i gave when i started my public safety career in 1979. i want to make a difference. cbp is a proud agency with the mission that is vital to this country. i believe by working with congress, the men and women who served cbp and its public and private sector