so most of theirs laws that aren't enforcement laws. let's go to the lawsuit situation for a second. you can sue the automobile industry and as one of the reasons why we have seatbelts, airbags, all sorts of safety features. here is an example of why lawsuits against the gun and street, if they were allowed, could be beneficial. every gun begins as a legal product and at some of them drift into the illegal market. the caller that we just talked to has owned guns for 32 years. she is a responsible gun owner. there are particular gun stores that are the source of thousands and thousands of guns that and up being used in crime. maybe that is just happenstance. people who happen to go into those stores are near high crime areas and that is was happening. or, maybe they are, wink and nod selling firearms to people they know i trafficking them on the black market. if every gun manufacturer knows which store is selling which gun, that is a fact. if gun manufacturers, that week -- in the way that we made drug manufacturers aware was happening w

under state law. the supreme court declined that case -- the case. guest: that would be the way to do it. the reason why the law was passed to protect the gun industry is because plaintiff started to make the same case against gun manufacturers that people were making against the tobacco industry and those lawsuits against the tobacco industry change the way cigarettes were sold and marketed in the gun industry was worried that these lawsuits were going to radically change the way guns will be manufacturers and -- manufactured and marketed and sold as well. congress cut the legs out of these lawsuits. host: let's go to darlene in las vegas. caller: hope you are both well. there are almost 40,000 gun laws in the united states and no one seems to give a darn about enforcing them. they want to come up with new policies when they cannot be bothered to deal with loss on the books. --laws on the books. we don't get to sue car manufacturers because people want to get drunk. it is absolutely ridiculous. let's

and it law firm, a smaller law firm, federal judging. each of those roles i've had to get up to speed in a variety of new areas of law and different types of clients and corporations, nonprofit organizations and individuals. i enjoyed the challenge in the variety in that is what i fully expect to encounter on the circuit court if confirmed. i believe that will be a transition that i am up to and i am fully confident that i can apply the lot neutrally and fairly as a circuit judge as i indicated earlier, being an advocate requires you to work within the framework of existing law, he cannot go off on your own. i am prepared to work within the existing framework in reaching decisions. finally, yes, i am aware the role of advocate and judge are very different. as an advocate, your positions are given to you because you must create -- you are coming up with the best arguments for your client, the best decisions within the framework of existing law to advocate what is best for your client. as a judge, do not come from the perspective, you appr

justice black, no law means no law. there are all kinds of levels disagreeing right there, to what extent should you try to create rules as opposed to approaches? as opposed to strict scrutiny, medium scrutiny, little scrutiny. are those rules, approaches, are they like stoplights, green, yellow, and red. my own view and why i say that there is, yes, those approaches are green, yellow, red. we will answer some questions for you using not the questions that we get. sometimes but not too often. when people get into that whatever color light they are using they asked somewhat similar questions at least to themselves, and there will say how does this really affect speech and what kind of speech? is it that kind to help create a well-known marketplace of ideas or help transmit those ideas? two, those of the government to connect on them. what is the reason for this rule that seems to hurt some and are there other ways of going about it. although those three parts are well known, sometimes the court refers to them and sometim

under law, he is presumed innocent. the federal ministry of finance is role will later be subjected to a parliamentary inquiry. the government factions would conclude that the authorities had acted appropriately. but the question remains, is the tax heist really over now? i hecker has now been investigating for 4 years. she has conducted further raids and questioned new key witnesses. above all, she can't get one statement out of her head. the industry has long since come up with new come ex models. they're not talented, even a recounted to structure full time, but it was so complex that you would never have thought of that in your life. they had $25.00 intermediate steps. you wouldn't have noticed unless someone spilled at all now for you and actually at that. so the perfidious tax robbery continues to grab into the states, pockets is just to lucrative. and the come ex actors are apparently always one step ahead of the authorities. as it's in the top there are off troll tough trying to people sitting there. their job i

to effectively enforce the law. on friday ontario invoked a state of emergency to respond to the blockades. this was the responsible and necessary thing to do. today to continue building on these efforts the federal government is ready to use more tools at its disposal to get the situation fully under control. after discussing, after speaking with proposition leaders, the federal government has invoked the emergency act to supplement provincial and territorial capacity to address the blockades and occupations. i want to be very clear. the scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats that they are meant to address. the emergencies act will be used for strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country. this is about keeping canadians safe, protecting people's jobs, and restoring confidence in our institutions. here is how the measures we are taking today will help get the situation under control. the police

yes, we have the idea that especially in tax law, you can do things that are allowed by law as long as they're not expressly forbidden. he also broadens it for years viagra and his colleagues that have come ex funds winning over banks and rich investors for the deals and immediately advising that in terms of taxation. everything was completely legal as company. it was just no consensus as there was no universally accepted published opinion anywhere which said that these comics deals are illegal. in fact, legislators had tried for decades to stop come x to no avail. the industry along with hunted bagger relies on a legit loopholes in the law. and since the legislator had not closed them, the deals were legal. can this be true? are hunted bagger and all the other comics players really just victims of law enforcement as they claim. ah, when boy, he takes over the investigation. there is in fact on a single verdict declaring the deals to be in violation of criminal law. naga, on the other hand, can cite scholarly articles by well known professors and there are many expert opinions, both hi

of law. i want to thank, again, each of our law enforcement officers for their dedication to our community. i yield back. mrs. cammack: thank you to my friend and colleague from the great state of california for continuing to be a champion for our departments and law enforcement officers. madam speaker, may i inquire as to the remaining time? the speaker pro tempore: you have seven minutes remaining. mrs. cammack: thank you. you know, it's pretty challenging standing in a room that's from the view of c-span, is filled, but i can tell you right now that it's just you and me, madam speaker, as well as my colleague from the sunshine state, representative rutherford behind me. as well as some of our fantastic staff here on the house floor. you know, i think it's time that we stop playing these partisan games and really come together because this truly is a bipartisan issue. this is an issue that effects our communities as a whole. and i think if we are going to call for responsibility, for action

law school. she would draw in her coloring book at the dining room table next to her father's law books. she was elected mayor of her junior high school and president of her high school class where she was a standout in the speech and debate team. it was after a debate tournament took place at harvard in high school when she believed she could one day be a student there. there were those who told her she shouldn't set her sights too high, but she refused to accept limits. she graduated magna cum laude from harvard. she went on to attend harvard law school where she was a top student and editor of the law review. then, she applied for a coveted clerkship on the u.s. supreme court and she was selected. the justice who thought she was worthy of this honor was a young lawyer, none other than justice breyer whose seat i am nominating her to fill. not only did she learn about being a judge from justice breyer himself, she saw the great rigor through which justice breyer approached his work. she learned

lawyer with a prestigious law firm. if confirmed she will join justice sotomayor as the only other member of the supreme court as experience as a trail court judge, a critical qualification in my view. and once again, stepping in the footsteps, she would become the only member of the court who previously served as a member of the united states sentencing commission. and she brings additional perspective to the court as well. she comes from a family of law enforcement with her brother and uncles having served as police officers. that's one reason i expect by the fraternal order of police, the national organization today, said, and i quote, there's little doubt she has the temperament, the intellect, the legal experience and family background to have earned this appointment. and they went on to say they were confident she would, quote, approach her future cases with an open mind and treat issues related to law enforcement fairly and justly. incredibly, judge jackson has already been confirmed by the united states senate t

works in law works for them. and that we must carry that tradition forward pretty soon president biden will analysis luncheon for justice stephen g. breyer's successor to the spring court, big shoes to fill and i'm no doubt the resident biden will select a jurist who parallels justice stephen g. breyer and intellect and ability and dedication predict to the public service. with this retirement we have an opportunity to confirm an outstanding justice, no one who will champion to the freedoms and liberties we so dear and also remain faithful to the rule of law and he will approach her work on the court with the same thoughtful dedication by justice stephen g. breyer we don't yet know who the nominee will be but here's what we do know that no matter them in a will undertake a process in the senate judiciary committee is both fair, and timely. this process before the senators an opportunity to review the nomineesor record it and questin the nominee garlic while at the same time, enjoying the nominee is treated respec

under state law.he supreme court declined that case -- the case. guest: that would be the way to do it. the reason why the law was passed to protect the gun industry is because plaintiff started to make the same case against gun manufacturers that people were making against the tobacco industry and those lawsuits against the tobacco industry change the way cigarettes were sold and marketed in the gun industry was worried that these lawsuits were going to radically change the way guns will be manufacturers and -- manufactured and marketed and sold as well. congress cut the legs out of these lawsuits. host: let's go to darlene in las vegas. caller: hope you are both well. there are almost 40,000 gun laws in the united states and no one seems to give a darn about enforcing them. they want to come up with new policies when they cannot be bothered to deal with loss on the books. --laws on the books. we don't get to sue car manufacturers because people want to get drunk. it is absolutely ridiculous. let's b

you know, when we passed a law, whether it is the california law or any other law, that is the only -- that is only the beginning. what has to happen is these laws are tested and they evolve and they develop and, as a society, we learn what they can mean, what they can mean for us and how they are going to protect us in society, so what the private right of action does is it creates the opportunity not only for individuals but for groups of people, for collectives, to really bring issues into the judicial system, to have those issues explored, and to create precedents, and this is what is called the life of the law, how the law involves and how we can move forward into this century not just with statutes that are frozen in time but with laws that are evolving according to what justice brandeis once called the eternal youth of the law, because we have these kinds of interactional processes. >> i completely agree. our civil rights laws -- right to private action. i didn't want to ask you to elaborate in the few seconds left with regard to what you believe is most important to protect ou

one of the big challenges of a law like the eca -- that will be the law for the next 50 or 100 years. trying to predict not just who in 2024 or 2028 we need to be concerned about a need to worry about, but we need to worry about and distrust 20 years from now, 50 years from now. trying to predict the future where the potential threats to the electoral system are going to originate from. host: michael morley joining us from fortis state university. as far as the debate on capitol hill over this, i want to play two bits of sound from yesterday about where various legislators are in this process. i want to start with dick durbin, the senate judiciary committee chairman, talking about these efforts. listen to what he has say. [video clip] >> i would like to put together a bipartisan approach to this. we are trying to protect the integrity of the electoral college vote for the very reason i mentioned earlier, the january 6 assault on the capital by these insurrectionists was an attempt to interrupt this process. the house committee finding last week that there were some alternative false s

law. the chinese government is increasingly targeting people inside the u.s. for personal and political retribution, undercutting the freedoms that our constitution and laws promise. the kinds of people the chinese communist party tends to go after are not those that a responsible government with make their enemies, refugee, dissidents, uyghurs, people with their own ideas who speak or worship as their conscience dick cates. one egregious example is a thing called fox hunt, which is a program that president xi jinping claimed in 2014 was created to stamp out corruption, but in reality, in reality, it targets, captures and repatriots former chinese citizens living overseas whom it sees as a political or financial threat. over the past eight years, the chinese government has hauled home more than 9,000 people worldwide, bringing them back to china where they can be imprisoned or controlled and a big reason why it's been so effective is because much like with this economic espionage, the chin

opponents who love those labor laws and oppose the e.r.a. as a threat to those labor laws. and you also have conservative minded individuals who do not like labor laws but they are still opposing the e.r.a. so both conservative and liberal protectionists believed that women required special protection. they just difd in where that protection should come from. so for conservative protectionists, women's protection should primarily come from the male head of the household. they thought that government reform efforts like the sexual labor laws undermined husband's governing authority in the household. now liberal protectionists believed that government reform efforts could also serve as effective instruments of protection for women. even with those differences, show, you still have, like i said before, liberal conservative protectionist believing women needed special consideration and special protection because of their roles as mothers and caretakers of the home. so a shared desire to preserve the law's ability to treat men and women differently on account of sex after the pa

>> not just federal law enforcement.nk an awful lotot in fact e vast majority of these heartbreaking line of duty's ore state and local brothers and sisters. they are the ones that are bearing the brunt and we need to be there for them. i will say this is one of these issues that does not get in my view the attention that it deserves. we had 73 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty last year. that's greater than any number since 9/11. and what's even more alarming is how many of them were unprovoked, and bushed or something similar type of attack. and of course that's not even counting all those officers who were killed in other ways or were shot and wounded but thankfully survived but whose lives in whose families lives are forever changed and we are off to a pretty grim start in 2022 as well. i wrote an op-ed in "the wall street journal" a couple of weeks ago trying to raise more attention to this issue, and one of the things that struck me i was working on the op-ed is that more kept dying as i was fine-

it's about law and order, it's about fairness, equal protection under the law, and one set of rules. we're all oklahomans, let's work together to solve this. with that, let me turn over to our legislative agenda for this session. we start this year with an incredible opportunity. oklahomans have elected the largest super majority in state history. we have a very clear mandate to enact conservative policies that protect liberty and defend against the biden administration's federal overreach. [applause] >> i challenge each of us to be bold. let's capitalize on the opportunity we have and let's make oklahoma a top 10 state. to reach our destination, we need a map to stay on course. our road map to top 10 has four check points. number one, driving hope for all oklahomans. number two, protecting oklahomans in our way of life. number three, making oklahoma the most pro business friendly state in the entire country. [applause] >> and number four, delivering taxpayers more for their money. let's start with driving hope for all oklahomans. hope is not a wish or a feeling. it's a proven scienc

as he began speaking, judge breyer laid out his interpretation of the law and said i believe the laws work for people. he argued that our nation's vast web of quote, constitutions, statutes, rules and regulations and procedures has a purpose, the purpose is to help the many different individuals who make up america. from so many different backgrounds and circumstances and so many different needs and hopes. live together, productively, harmoniously in freedom. and on the nearly three decades he's lived by those words and laws showed a force for good, a force for unity, and a force for freedom and equality. so for me, i have truly mixed feelings as i stand here today, and look back on the incredible legacy of justice breyer who announced last week he would retire at the end of this term. what a legacy he leaves, born in san francisco, stephen breyer attended stanford and harvard law and three years after graduating from harvard returned to the school as a professor, a role in which he inspired a generation of jurists and public servants. and he served in the united states army and army

where her dad was attending law school. she would draw on her coloring book at the table next to her dad's law books. she grew up to be a star student. elected mayor of her junior high school and president of her high school class when she was a standout. she was a stand out in a speech and debate team. and it was after a debate tournament that took place at harvard when she was in high school, that she believed she could one day be a student there. through those that told her she shouldn't set her sights to high but she refused to accept limits others set for her. she went on to harvard where she graduated magnum couple laudy and she was a top student and editor of the law review. then she applied for a highly competitive and coveted clerkship on the united states supreme court and she was selected. the justice who thought she was worthy of this high honor was a young lawyer, was none other than justice stephen breyer. not only did she learn about being a judge from justice breyer himself, she saw the great rigor through w

the law up as they go along. .. the constitution representing the fundamentally law of the land, and we need judges to make decisions based on what that law says, not again on what their says, not again on what their not again with t the preferred outcome as it may be. as he approaches these two paths open ignores the clamor on the left and serves the best interest of the american people. send us a nominee here respects the law and the limited role of a judge in our political system because a judge is not supposed to substitute his or her opinion of the elected representatives of the people. as chief justice marshall said , the decisions of the court interpreting the constitution for the last word. what we need is what chief justice roberts called humility. the judges understand their important limited role under government not to supersede the policy judgments of the elected officials just because they can, because they are the last word. weor need judges who will demonstrate that sort of humility, that understand

i strongly encourage the supervisors to oppose this law and keep the previous law. there is really no reason to give unchecked power and surveillance data. the use of fear and fear mongering for crimes. this is an argument that has been used for a decade to crack down on communities of color, and for communities and activists. we already have proven records of sfpd abusing power. i strongly urge the supervisors to oppose this new law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> greetings. i am calling -- i don't need to echo all of what has been said. everyone has been very articulate in what has been said. one of the things that i do want to say is if there is checks in place, what would be the reason for removing them? the only reason we would want to remove them is because -- [ indiscernible ] -- that is not rocket science. i am going to say that i reject the mayor's attempt -- [ indiscernible ] -- i ask that you not supported as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am not a district eight resident, but i will also say hi to supervisor mandelman

i would completely agree with this statement because we do have laws in place and know those laws aren't perfect, but they are being constantly amended to improve your you know, and thanks to the work of civil society organizations and feels feminist figures. but the protection of women is in just relying on the law. it's the entire judicial structural system that plays a part. it depends on how judges sitting in the higher 14 deborah, the law. it depends on the bureaucratic and structure laws that result in investigation, delays and inefficiency. it depends on access to the entire judicial system. so focusing on the entire, you know, criminal justice system rather than just the law is more important in my opinion. just looking at this entire system, then they go, does this influence in your view how goals and women and bought just on lead their daily lives? i would say that after this decision, because this was a landmark case hybrid like is there were eyes on it. people were watching it or was it affects women and goes when we hear about such and daily, hard breaking decisions and then

law school professor?r were you nervous the first year or so? justice breyer: i think i was pretty nervous. i remember talking to a friend of mine i had been an undergraduate with, and he was there too. we both said, this is the end of our great careers. [laughter] after our first year. and we both did pretty well in law school. david: you were on the harvard law review, and sometimes you get to clerk on the supreme court for another justice. and you clerked for -- justice breyer: grover goldberg. david: what was that like? justice breyer: jack kennedy said he was the smartest man he ever met. david: so you clerked for him and then went to teach at harvard law school. when you went to harvard law school, did you say this is going to be my life? i'm going to be a professor? nothing terrible about that but did you say, maybe someday i will be on the supreme court, maybe i will be a judge? was that in the back of your mind? justice breyer: i didn't think someday. anybody who thinks maybe someday -- i do not w

i speak this as to be respectful of the capacity of law-enforcement officers that even law-enforcementicers know that we need to get much further upstream and stop it at the home, stopping at the faith community. say something at that point. >> iq, rabbi cyton-walker. you you let your attacker in because he told you he was hungry and spent the night in the cold . how does the concept of generosity to strangers shape your role as rabbi and you believe domestic terrorism might erode that identity ? >> first of all, thank youfor the question . and that idea of love the stranger, care for the stranger is something that is of value that i continue to drive to live. it's part of who we are. i think that threats of domestic terrorism i think the threat against the jewish community is very much for many people creating a sense of fear and concern and it is a real challenge so at the same time, the chances of a terrorist attack are so remote that i pray we don't give in to that fear. i do believe we have to be prepared. i think all of those security trainings were very important . but i still t

and law, law and literature, and other topics. since august, 2016 he has served on the financial oversite and management board for puerto rico which he currently chairs. professor. >> thank you very much, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in this very, very important hearing that you all are holding, it's needless to say, a great honor to appear before you. the issue that we're focusing on today, the potential abuse of so-called texas two-step transaction and other divisive mergers is in my view one of the principal reasons for a growing backlash against perceived abuses in the chapter 11 reorganization process. the term divisive or divisional merger is an oxymoron. rather than combining firms, a divisive merger divides the firm's assets and/or its liabilities into two entities. in texas two-step transactions, as in the controversial johnson & johnson case, the liabilities are shouldn'ted off -- shunted off and then the new into bankruptcy. what it's designed to do to turn a company like johnson & johnson's consumer p

fugitives in the law. -- of the law. as u.s. marshal reynolds would also play an important role in the biden administration's multijurisdictional strike force to investigate and prosecute gun traffickers, channeling deadly weapons into the city of chicago. every day there are new stories of horrifying and often deadly impacts of rising violent crimes in the northern district of illinois. in fact, last year was one of the city of chicago's deadliest in decades. but statistics alone cannot fully describe the devastation our communities have endured. for so many chicagoans, the presence of gun violence is a constant source of trauma and grief in their day-to-day lives. it is painful and gut-wrenching to see this sort of senseless violence happen again and again. we cannot wait any longer to advance reynolds' confirmation, especially not for his nomination to be used as a pawn in senator cotton -- for senator cotton to expedite a response to his unrelated pending -- to the u.s. department of justice. instead we must act to m

what we have seen at georgetown law rather than law students defending the quality under the law is ae meltdown and a capitulation by the end of the students and the rest of chemistry just like you saw in that video where they are trying to appease these medical students and give them everything that they are demanding rather than actually standing up for basic constitutional principles. >> laura: nate, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. other than trying to you have to laugh because i will have -- i have to show the audience and at that you captured. >> we have to do so much work -- i don't know if it is a couple dinners or -- [overlapping speakers] >> that would help us. >> we have food on the way. >> is the dean of students or whoever is in that room actually catering literally catering to the student protesters at the food is reparations? i cannot follow that at all. >> nate: it was the kind of thing you would laugh at and if these students were not the kind of people that are going to be running our country, the people who are going to be in our big law firms, and they are --

you can have the best laws and regulations in the country. but if local officials, estate officials don't comply with those laws and don't enforce them, they're not going to do you much good and we're hoping that folks at the grassroots, public citizens, state legislators and others will use this to not only put in good laws but make sure that election officials are complying with the laws that have been constitutionally put in place by their state legislatures. each state you can click on it. you can get complete details. we explain our methodology. what the best practices are that we think should be there. 12 broad categories, 47 differentcriteria . this is a work in progress. if folks think we've missed something, if they think something needs to be corrected. if they think there's another standard or criteria they think we ought to consider we want to hear about it. we encourage folks to take a look at this, analyze it. look at our standards, look at our methodology andlet us know if there's anything you think we should fix . i hate to sa

right wing hinder groups here strongly support the law. monday not hipson was amongst the men who stormed pastor of it at this church. he alleges that christian congregations like overread these been wash hindus in injecting that a legend or offer financial incentives to convert the law. he says, will give them strong grounds to put an end to this only for them. once the law comes, we can demolish these judges or the already prepared to demolish them yet, but we are waiting for the lobby. a rule once it is passed on, our hands are no longer day and we are free to take action. we can get them and report them to the police and legal arizola day that the following up for now passed over the visits church members at home and only in areas considered safe. and this man and his family, but also forced out of their village after the attack on the church. but they see the find comfort and place all they want is the freedom to do so in all the ws delica respond an image or jaguar file. this report and she joins us now from daddy, err, namisha, thes

we remind all parties of the responsibility to follow international law. we condemn any activity that would deliberately damage civilians and infrastructure remind all p

and follow the law of the land and we need judges to make decisions on what the law says not again, on what their preferred jut come may be. as the president approaches these two paths i hope he'll ignore the clamor on the left and make a choice that serves in the best interests of the american people and send us a nominee who respects the law and the limited role of a judge in our political system. because a judge is not supposed to substitute his or her opinion for that of the elected representatives of the people. and surely, the constitution itself is the fundamental law of the land, and as chief justice marshall said in marbury versus madison, the decisions of the court interpreting that constitution are the last words. but what we need is what chief justice roberts called humility. that judges understand they're important, but limited role under our form of government, not to supercede the policy judgments of elected officials because they can because they are the last word. we need judges who will demonstrate that sort of humility that understands, yes, they have a tough and

comment insurance companies also evade the law. i said that they really vocally pronounce that they obey united states law and indeed enforce united states law with respect to their merchant customers, but there are plenty of insurance policies, especially during the war of 1812 which merchants generally do not want they want to be able to trade wherever they want to trade and so they use all kinds of work arounds that they're complex business allows them to use. so what i've put up on this slide here is an insurance policy that's made out to messers jonathan door and company of boston. as agents hmm. okay, so this policy is employing this sort of fig leaf of saying that jonathan door is not really the one who's being insured. but who is being insured this quickly line gave gives it away. oh, they're just the agents who need this insurance policy on a voyage that is currently illegal and illegal trading voyage for citizens of the united states is that it's just a cargo of this swedish vessel here. is not a swedish vessel. this is b

and the dean of that school of law. and i will make his brief part of the record here. i will do some opening remarks when he gets here senator kennedy will have opening remarks and senator durbin if he gets here first he may seek to offer opening remarks for the last three rounds with any luck and then i will introduce the panel and you can proceed with your testimony and we will go on to questions. i will be pretty rigorous about the five minute rule i know you have all put a lot of work into your statements that can be made a part of the record for the full benefit of your full statement but senators who have come to a hearing are eager to ask questions and engage with the panel and moving to that quickly is a good thing for a chairman to do so a strict policeman of the five minute rule. we are here to address a novel circumstance in bankruptcy law. imagine that a big corporation brings serious harm on you and your family and sue for damages to cover hospital bills to care for a family member. and then that claim aga