turning it into a positive, bridging the gap between law -- between the law enforcement community at state, local, or even federal level. the men and women i represent are doing a phenomenal job in assisting state and local partners bridging that gap. and that's what's important with faith & blue. and partnering with the reverend, you are doing an outstanding job with your team, and i'm happy and proud to be a part of that with my team, because we know that that is beneficial not only to the communities that we serve, but also beneficial to the people we represent, because it makes them much safer. it gives them the ability to know the communities they serve, the communities they patrol, the communities they are helping protect from violent crime in america. and that is an important message to send to the men and women we lead, that we have your backs. 100% of the general public is behind you. although there may be that 1% out there that turns around and tells you, the law enforcement guys are the bad guys, but that's not true, because when you need help, you called 911 -- when you n

that is, it is already an effective law, and here are the norms of this law. they are in the law .here are other laws about television and radio broadcasting, but they are not included in the law on media . they don't improve these norms, you know, we don't know how to implement it. therefore, maybe we will do it there in the second reading, well, it's absurd, you understand, because in fact, if you want to change something in the second reading, it is logical to leave the norm of the current laws to leave the status quo and then try to improve it, it is obvious that the purpose of this is non-improvement, namely the demolition of this norm so that these singers can once again play here on our tv and radio the list of persons who threaten national security, you rightly mentioned the mechanism that has been in effect for 7 years in fact, after the revolution of dignity, it was introduced and it is very important, it not only prohibits concert tours, but in fact, a person who is included in this list of fascist artists cannot be shown a film or series with her participation, and not

wade is the settled law of the land. do you believe it is the settled law of the land? >> roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court, it was decided in 1973, so, it's been on the books for a long time. it has been challenged on a number of occasions, and i discussed those yesterday, it is my, the supreme court has reaffirmed the decision. sometimes on the merits, sometimes in casey based on stare decisis. i think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value for a stare decisis, for at least two reasons. first of all, more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. secondly, i think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom invented in decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the same oath and are scholars and consciences. we may examine a question, they reach a conclusion, i think that's entitled to considerable respect, of course the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to, that is my view of that. so, it's a very important precedent. >> is it

federal law invalidates state laws that are in direct contradiction. this has really nothing to do with anything that the supreme court said, and certainly nothing to do with going around the supreme court. >> thank you all. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. and low income housing for renters. this is just under two hours.

. >> i am the dean of the law school in barkley school of law. it is my great pleasure to be o'here today political science university of california school of law. we are here because rick has written a terrific new book cheap speech -- how disinformation points as ouron politics and how to cure. were going to ask rick a number of questions about the book. and then want to get your questions. please be sure to send them into the youtube chat. rick, i find the title of the book quite provocative. you call it cheap speech what you mean by cheap speech? >> firstly think the commonwealth club for putting this form together. i would have helped by the samba could do it in person hopefully next time wet are together havig conversation will be able to do it face-to-face with thank you irwin as always for agreeing to be here. the term cheap speech is not mine it originates with a student professor he wrote an article in the yield law journal back in 1995 where he was talking about the upcoming information revolution. and many ways it was a pressing discu

into law. -- and be signed into law. i feel, quite honestly -- i don't know what the chair feels about this -- we have a sense of urgency here. as soon as we turned the corner into january or into another lengthy two-year presidential election, my personal feeling is we need to button this up before the end of the year. that will set the clarity to move forward for this next election. so i know i might get the answer that none of you think that you can tell congress on they should and how they should pass things but since you are here in your personal capacities i would like to know if you have an opinion on the urgency to get this wrapped up by the end of the year. mr. gore, i'll start with you. mr. gore: thank you, senator. i presume to tell congress but i certainly agree now is the time to act. it is a beneficial piece of legislation. it's pending before the congress now and the moment is here for congress to act. >> i would like to say it's a personal privilege i enjoyed visiting you when you were the ambassador. inc

trying to avoid the execution of the law in a courtroom of the law. it's an odd thing when you think about what the functions ought to be, but this is a great law firm. i would hire you all and i hope whenever i have legal issues to hire any of you, but thank you so much. we will see you soon. >> we'll hire you, to. >> thank you, kim, i wanted, [ indiscernible - multiple speakers ] we know who orders the food, whatever, thank you so much. nice seeing you all. >>> every magic partner now is like, really, i ordered the food? i'm just playing with you, i know you do more is managing partners. forget about it, as they say. >>> moving right along, some gop candidates won't even say, won't even say the former president's name. why are vulnerable republicans up for reelection now extending that 10 foot pole and keeping their distance? >> if trump is so tough, if he is so good at everything he does, how has he been such a victim of the deep state so many times? because he's not. because he uses victimization as his way out, and it's really frustrating, it's s

you can't discount that statement you talk about law and order. whose law? whose order?f it's the american people, then why are we the most heavily incarcerated country on the planet by miles? you know? law and order is a dog whistle for certain people. the history of our president and congress, men and women in senators shows the middle class, the lower class, we have no say in law and order. this is evident by that history. i am from new york. the history of imprisonment of people in these communities. it's not one race or another. everybody that doesn't have money is going to jail if they do something wrong, generally. we don't see that for wealthier americans. i don't think that is ever really talked about when politicians address law and order. they never really talk about who is making the laws passed. as far as law and order -- host: our next caller is mark from california. caller: hello. hello there. good morning. let's see. when it comes to law and order issues, i'm not going to support anybody that says defund the police or allows chaos to happen like the riots

so the term has moved from the law now. and since the last election, but still the content of the law is the saying and the media still uses this word when talking about it. and the signal has already been sent out to people which kind of treatment they can expect, which kind of stigmatization and discrimination, or they're going to stay in this country based on their ethnicity. all right, well we have run out of time. we're going to have to leave the discussion there. thanks so much. all of our guests mohammed us long and full tma to see and thank you for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website, algebra dot com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ha, inside stuart. you can also during the conversation on twitter, handle that insights from emergent room and the whole team here. uh huh. bye for now. ah a there that is a region of wonder i'm joy tragedy and yes of violet. but it doesn't matter where you are. you have to be able to relate

laws to enforce in which criminal laws to enforce and why does it seem to exactly follow the pattern of the partisan preferences of the bided white house. >> and again senator, the politics should not play does not like any role in prosecutorial decisions but also entered attorney general has increased u.s. marshal services resources. [inaudible]. >> why has there not been any others. >> does the department believe the laws unconstitutional if not why are you refusing to enforce. >> respectfully, i disagree that we have chosen not to enforce it and again, there has been one prosecution of out of hundred. >> what what about the rest of the one hundreds. >> again, i cannot comment on the current status of potential investigations in this area to my final question was the one prosecution reference in 1507 prosecution or something else. >> i don't believe it was under that. >> so you've not brought a single one and again. >> i believe the conduct itself was a focus of the prosecution sue mccoy think you need to follow up and follow the law. >> any further senator seeking questions, polit

prosecutors enforce the laws. they prosecute people for violating the laws. legislatures make laws. your representatives are elected by you to write into law the rules that you support. you get to create the parameters of your own society. that's called democracy. but when a prosecutor decides which laws are valid and which laws are not, that is the most basic subversion of democracy. andrew warren has done that for six years. the list that the governor just read is just partial. andrew warren also decided that he would not force hb1, the law that increased penalties for rioters. warren refused to prosecute 67blm rioters in the summer of 2020. he said there had been no breach of the peace in tampa when there most certainly had been, but he decided to ignore because he agreed with their politics. most recently warren declined to prosecute a gang member accused of shooting into a house with children inside after shooting somebody else. turns out the gang member was likely a biden voter. so he got a pass. people who aren't biden voters have had a much tougher time in andrew warren's ju

that's what i understand from critics of the laws. what's gonna happen to those who refused to leave? so in danish law, you can contest an eviction, and you can go to court, and this is what some of the residents are doing. they go to court to fight against this. this eviction is stating that this is a discriminatory law until now we haven't had success in being sports. so residents are taking this higher and higher up hopefully going to the european human rights commission. mama, you know, there's another aspect to this story right now. the fact that the danish government decided to take in ukrainian refugees fleeing the war in ukraine and that a majority of denmark's parliament voted to amend the these, these ghetto laws to make exceptions, to exempt ukrainians from these housing restrictions. what does that say to you? because there are many critics that are saying that this proves that these housing laws are discriminatory. what do you say? this is the one more proof to done lowest? let me know, make us said making the law in denm

you agree work all of the laws.e cases came before him, put in place a prosecutor who upheld the law, governor could do it today, in new york city in network state. it has not happened. it must happen. trey: you have proven it can be didn't winning 3 times, i think you beat a guy by the name of cuomo. thank you for your service and joining us on i sunday night. >> great being on with you, thank you. trey: up next. more nominated primaries were held this week as november elections about 70 days away, adam laxalt trying to remove chuck schumer, he is joining us next on "sunday night in america," righ ♪ ♪ how's he still playin'? aspercreme arthritis. full prescription-strength. reduces inflammation. don't touch my piano. kick pain in the aspercreme. trey: welcome back to "sunday night in america." senate is 50/50,. >> nomar join for error on either side. right now, bernie sanders is the chair of the senate budget committee. check schumer decides what the senate votes on. and kamala harris is the tie breaker, all this c

as chief law officers, we can clarify and reaffirm what the law is. reminding people that in california, abortion is legal, accessible and safe. whatever also your hearing or reading, it is important to state with the law is. people are not sure. they need their chief law officer to help them. we go by consumer alerts, telling people what crisis pregnancy centers are, telling district attorneys, public defenders and police that the homicide statute shall not be used to prosecute pregnancy loss. we got involved in an amicus brief. we clarified with the rule is and is not for the rest of the state. that advising power is really important. we have oversight power as well. as the health care industry continues to seek more mergers, when nonprofit hospitals merge and consolidate, we have a role of reviewing the terms and conditions and providing approval and one of the things you always look for is to make sure that health care remains robust. from direct legal power to advising power, to oversight power, there is a lot of power that we have. we are doing

threat to those labor laws and you also have conservative minded individuals who do not like labor laws, but they're still opposing the era so both conservative and liberal protectionists believed that women required special protection. they just differed and 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 those special labor laws. undermined husbands governing authority in the household now liberal protectionists believe that government reform efforts could also serve as effective instruments of protection for women even with those differences though. you still have like i said before liberal and conservative protectionist. leaving that women needed special consideration and special protection because of their roles as mothers and caretakers at the home. so a shared desire to preserve the law's ability to treat men and women differently on account a sex after the passage of the 19th amendment and in the face of the developing equal ri

, what is included in this law, why did it arise because the first e-e project of the law was adoptedby the committee two years ago, then there was not a whole series of laws that we adopted further e for the e protection of the ukrainian media space e-e and there were other laws that were adopted e-e and in principle in the previous version this were regulated, but this version does not have it. well, i have not yet said that it will be possible, for example, to show films that glorify the nkvd and the kgb and the organs of the aggressor country, and many other such points . this law, because if they are not transferred, then this law will cancel those norms and they will not actually apply, and we will return to the situation that existed not only until the 19th year, but also somewhere possibly until the 17th year or not only until the 20th or on the 21st because there are many progressives we have adopted new laws now, therefore there are a number of such points that obviously bother me personally and this cannot be the case, and in addition there are points that actually return u

those natural law rulings struck down such laws as the child labor laws minimum wage laws and laws that required safe working conditions. they held that the natural law of freedom of contract and the natural law right to private to property. created rights for businesses incorporations that rose above the efforts of government to to prevent the ills they created. they put these so-called economic rights into a zone of protection so high that even reasonable laws aimed at curbing corporate excesses were struck down. now again known as proposing to take us all the way back to this so called lochner era. but there are those who wish to employ the same reasoning that was used in that era. today's natural law proponents of what they term new economic rights and new property rights have called into question many of the most important laws enacted in this century. laws protecting the environment our water in our air laws regulating child care and senior citizens facility facilities. and even called in the question the constitutionality of the social security system. now judge thomas, you've ma

nobody is above or below the law. each american citizen regardless of rank or status must live by the same set of rules. the basis for completely new period time of what i government could be. self government our founders spent weeks locked in a hot room in philadelphia arguing how to be implemented they even argued what to call the new state obviously not king or emperor but some suggested your excellency or your most highness any and that was rejected as too closely resembling the monarchy whatever the title of mr. president. that is one of my favorite examples how seriously they took the concept of equal justice under the law. is part of the philosophical bedrock of america. but in practice today do we have it? the attorney general seems to think so. >> upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor. steve: of course he was talking this week to authorize a raid on mar-a-lago. mishandled official documents. mishandled documents? come on. >> what difference at this point doesn't make? s

i ended up going into law. law became my passion. it still is my passion. susan: you tell the story about the phone call that changed your life. the suggestion that you can -- you might serve as a judge for one day. could you tell that to our audience? ladoris: i would love to. there are some things that some states have that is called a judge pro tem program. it means in latin, for the time. it means judge for a day. it is a way at least in my court, where lawyers would get phone calls. i got a phone call from a judge who said we have a judge pro tem program and i'm trying to make it more diverse and have people of color participate. would you like to be a judge for a day? can i put you on a list? my answer was sure. i had never thought about being a judge. i never thought i could wear the black robe. these cases were small claims cases. people were suing each other and at the time, the maximum limit was $5,000. in california, you can suits -- sue somebody in small claims court for up to $10,000. one day, a few months later, i get the phone call. your name

devon carbado is a professor of law at ucla school of law. the author of numerous articles and edited volumes. he is also the co-author of acting white, rethinking race in post-racial america. he lives in los angeles. he will be in conversation with paul butler, a former federal prosecutor who provides legal commentary for msnbc and npr, and has been featured in 60 minutes and profiled in the "washington post." a law professor at georgetown university, he is the author of let's get free, a hip-hop theory of justice. winner of the media award and show called, policing black men. both from the new press. he has published numerous op beds and book reviews including the "new york times", the "washington post", the "boston globe" and the los angeles times.me so please let's welcome them. thank you for being here. [applause]e. really is my please the opportunity to engage you in this way. i'm looking forward to your comments your reactions your questions and before we get to all of that i would of course like to thank politics and pros for hosting

any state law that prevents hospital from fulfilling its obligations violates federal law. the justice department will also be filing a motion to dismiss the texas lawsuit challenging hhs's guidance. the law could not be clearer, and we are going to vigorously litigate this suit to ensure women get the emergency care to which they are entitled under federal law. led by the associate attorney general the department's reproductive rights task force will build on efforts to protect reproductive freedom. it's work includes monitoring state laws that infringe on federal constitutional protections, evaluating appropriate actions in response to those laws including filing lawsuits and statements of interest and coordinating technical assistance to both congress and the states on the federal constitution and statutory considerations. five weeks ago i promised that the justice department would work tirelessly to protect reproductive freedom and we would not waiver from our founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all americans. that is what we have done, and that is wh

broadcasting, this law on treason, this law on the press, and so on.here is a sufficient number of them, and it really is. - the second problem is that we are trying in wartime, now we have a war going on. we are trying to work out a law that would work in peacetime, it is very difficult to do , because we all live in the matrix now and we want it as much as possible protect uh the information space of ukraine from russian propaganda and so on and so it is very difficult to maintain a balance between the interests of the state there, for example, freedom of speech during the war and to maintain this balance in this draft law so far, everything looks like it will be possible to do it, but you have to keep a close watch and it is very difficult to do it because a large number of legal norms . the beginning of a full-scale the invasion of the russian federation into ukraine and appeared on the airwaves, the telethon appeared, the only news, it was on the airwaves of several ukrainian tv channels at the same time, and the minister of culture and informatio

he's a professor of law at ucla school of law, the author of numerous articles and volumes. he's also an author of [inaudible] post racial america. he lives in los angeles. he will be in conversation with paul butler, a former federal prosecutor who provides legal [inaudible] for msnbc and npr and has been featured in 60 minutes and profiled in the washington post. a law professor at georgetown university, he's the author of let's get free, a hip-hop theory of justice. winner of a media award and [inaudible]. he has published numerous op eds and book reviews including the new york times, the washington post, the boston globe, and the los angeles times. so please let's welcome them. thank you for being here. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. thank you very much for coming out. it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to engage you in this way. i'm looking forward to your comments, your reactions, your questions. before we get to all of that, i would of course like to thank you for hosting this event and thank paul for agreeing to be a moderator. thank you very much, paul

law ruling struck down such laws as the child labor laws minimum wage laws and laws that require safe working conditions they held the natural law freedom of contract, and the natural law right to property created rights for businesses and corporations that rose above the efforts of the government to prevent the ills that they created. they put these so-called economic rights into a zone of protection so high that even reasonable laws aimed at curbing corporate excesses were struck down. again known to propose going all the way back to this lochner area but there are those who wish to employ the same reasoning that was used in that era. today natural law proponents, but they term new economic rights and new property rights have called into question many of the most important laws enacted during this century. laws protecting the environment, our water and our air. laws regulating childcare and senior citizen facilities. even called into question the constitutionality of the social security system. george thomas, you have made it abundantly clear that you do not subscribe to the most ex

upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor. under my watch that is precisely what the justice department is doing. all americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence. much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. we do that to protect the constitutional rights of all americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations. federal law, long-standing department rules, and our ethical obligations prevent me from providing further details as to the basis of the search at this time. there are, however, certain points i want you to know. first, i personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter. second, the department does not take such a decision lightly. where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken. third, let me address recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the fbi and justice departme

if we go back to the uniform law of commission, do we develop a model of law? good idea but it would take 30 to 40 years. we met a talented physician and lawyer during our duke visit. we came up with an idea. how about a one sentence amendment to the state medical practice act were smart they all existed in every state at all. nothing in that language shall prevent a physician from delegating into a specially trained nurse or physician assistant that they are qualified to carry out certain tasks. as long as they are carried out under the supervision control and responsibility of the license physician. we completed our hundred page report to the director of health manpower in hew and got the endorsement. with that, we rallied health care leader starting with the presence of the ama and the aha, federation of state medical board to encourage state legislators to act immediately. they did. by 1973, within three years, states had amended their medical practice act to a qualified assistance to work in collaboration with and under the supervision of physicians. the l

it is not unusual for people to argue, to resist arrest rate lawful orders, lawful commands for that's when they get super important to collect the data per your proposed legislation so it can better inform the public and our training. but also that we again speak with that voice the place to fight criminal charges or the police is in a courtroom. everyone seems to think it's okay these days to argue or fight on the street. there is no good outcome that comes from that. >> sgt penny, you spoke about the online radicalization of individuals who target the police and organize targeting of a police. what is the relationship between defend the police movement and the targeted violence against law enforcement? >> think a center for the question. you could have something as benign as defend the police, like it was just a logo. once you take that on social media, the message of proliferates with the #. i thanks that's we have lost so much discussion because we think of it being benign. but the reality is it radical, individuals use the same content to incite violence against police rivets thi

in america, nobody is above the law. >> no one is above the law. >> no one is above the law, not evenr president of the united states. >> will: no one is above the law, except for swalwell and clinton and hunter biden. they are mocking you. we've been building to this moment for quite some time. for the last four years, anyone who challenged permanent washington has been targeted by the fbi. they've been waking up to predawn s.w.a.t. team raids with cnn in tow. they are getting criminally charged and bankrupted not because they committed any crime but because of the fbi wanted them silenced. before the fbi's interview, you remember the story of michael flynn at the white house in 2017, the fbi's director of counterintelligence, he authored a handwritten note about his plan to entrap flynn. "what is our goal," he wrote. "truth, submission or get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired. we all know then what happened next. according to a partisan fbi agent name peter strzok, he's not the most impartial of sources, flynn told agent he wasn't sure if he talked about sanctions

several important draft laws failed. were not enough votes for the law on the service in local self-government bodies was rejected, he was rejected , the draft law on changes to the fight against terrorism was rejected. although i think that it is very right that we rejected the nonsense that we wrote after that the chairman decided that it was necessary to gather at the homes of everyone, according to me, we had not already considered five bills. of course, this is an important appeal. my colleague correctly says that there were several appeals today, and it was not only about the nuclear plant, but at the end, we had a document regarding the violation of international humanitarian law by the russian federation. this is an absolutely key story, because we all hope that we have already memorized this thesis that it is important not only to defeat the russian federation physically on the territory of ukraine, it is important not only to defeat them it is important to expel from the territory of ukraine a foreigner of 1991

into law. -- and be signed into law. feel, quite honestly -- i don't know what the chair feels about this -- we have a sense of urgency here. as soon as we turned the corner into january or into another lengthy two-year presidential election, my personal feeling is we need to button this up before the end of the year. that will set the clarity to move forward for this next election. so i know i might get the answer that none of you think that you can tell congress on they should and how they should pass things but since you are here in your personal capacities i would like to know if you have an opinion on the urgency to get this wrapped up by the end of the year. mr. gore, i'll start with you. mr. gore: thank you, senator. i presume to tell congress but i certainly agree now is the time to act. it is a beneficial piece of legislation. it's pending before the congress now and the moment is here for congress to act. >> i would like to say it's a personal privilege i enjoyed visiting you when you were the ambassador. inc.

there continues to be an escalation in incidents of law enforcement tragedies where law enforcement are hurt. there continues to be an increase on our law enforcement professionals. police officers are leaving the profession more than before. officer suicides are up, sky -- crime is skyrocketing. we have been marching in the wrong direction. that is why i am committed to marching with law enforcement, because together is our only path forward. i want to thank our national partner organizations who are here. i am going to ask the leaders of the national association to join me on stage. this is why we are doing it. the american people are watching. when i was growing up, there were two things i was taught to preach about. there was one, hope, the other, faith. hope suggests that we hope crime will decrease. hope says we hope officer incidents will decrease. hope says we hope that our communities will be less aggressive. hope says that little boys and girls and communities of color will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. hope says that, i hope and

enforcement exceptions in every one of those laws if law if there is a belief that law from from law enforcement based on information they receive that there could be a threat to life. privacy goes out the window if there could be a threat to life and it should i mean, you know, i'm i'm gonna go through a door because i'd rather as an agent as an fbi agent. i'd rather have you sue me than me have somebody behind the door get killed. sure. can you think of any sort of examples of the school or business who's really implemented a reporting system that is incredibly effective everyone sort of bought in. have you seen that kind of happen or is no one really quite there yet? that's a good question. okay. so here's what i would say. there are since columbine. there's no question that safe to tell out in, colorado. has stepped up and been the the center of attention for how to do that. you can look at say it's safe. sa fe with the number two. tell t e l l safe to tell it's an anonymous reporting system, but there are anonymous reporting systems all over the united states now that you can th

interprets the laws when necessary to do so to resolve a dispute as to the laws meeting in particular case. he didn't like. particularly federalism because it was going to serve as an impediment. for him to be the savior of the american people that are during the great depression. so he pushed this aggressive interpretation saying look, you've got to interpret the commerce clause is given congress the power to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce. and pretty much everything affects interstate commerce. it's like the butterfly effect the concept that a butterfly or swarm thereof flapping wings in the amazon somewhere in brazil will affect wind currents and weather patterns in florida. the supreme court thankfully had already rejected similar arguments that were presented during woodrow wilson's time in office culminating in a case called ham murphy dagen heart that dealt with a a specific type of child labor when fdr came along they stayed pretty close to that precedent. and they pushed back up. they invalidated a lot of fdr's legislative agenda. this happened in slow mot

the particular body of law i want to focus your attention on his fourth amendment laws. am curious, if i were to say do you know your miranda if i ask you to hold hands and do miranda warning to comprised of ithe miranda warnings even if u are an abolitionist you probably have your favorite cop show. not going to ask you to tell me what it is but you probably have one. now, if i were to ask you to recite the text of the fourth amendment, who could do it? well not you. [laughter] but you probably can't do it. and that is part of what i wrote this book. specifically think about this course we have about policing. we talk about the power to arrest. we talk about qualifiede immunity. we talk about excessive force. we talk about no knock warrants. we talk about stop and frisk. we talk about driving while black. each of these problems are fourth amendment problems. issues discussed in the press. we do have little data diving before this talk. and i looked in the media archives to see how many stories do youd see if you looked at for example deadly force? 4000. how many stories

took place today, the developers hope that the deputies will vote the law is in the first reading in fall, and already in december after the final approval, the president will sign it, olga chayko with details, ukrainian mass media are preparing for new legislative realities already in the fall, deputies must vote on a new law on media after the eu gave us a clear perspective on membership, ukrainian laws must correspond to european ones in addition, there is a war going on in ukraine, so the media law developed a few dozen years ago is hopelessly out of date . modern approaches to the regulation of the media market are no longer television, they are no longer print media, and the legislation must be modern. the law is being developed again in partnership with eu experts, who especially emphasize the independence of the national regulator of the ukrainian national council for television and radio broadcasting and emphasizes that the independence of the change this is primarily protection and support for the subjects of information activities, not those of possible censorship. olga ge

the reason it was not worse is because law enforcement officials did what they do. they showed amazing courage by running toward gunfire for the seng lar purpose of trying to save lives. it is a fact that because of their quick response getting on the scene, being able to respond to the gunman, and eliminate the gunman, they were able to save lives. >> the governor's description of the police response turned out to be false. days later, he would say he'd been misled by his briefers. here is what we know. at 11:28 a.m. on may 24th, the speeding ford pickup truck crashes into a ditch outside the grounds of robb elementary school. the surveillance video camera overlooking the parking lot of the hillcrest funeral home across the street shows two witnesses to the crash approach the pickup. the driver fires at them and they run. they then call 911. the 18-year-old gunman, now out of the truck walks toward the school. a teacher inside calls 911. >> he's shooting. the kids are running. oh my god. get in, get in your room! get in your room! get in your room! get in your room

of law. we're here because rick is written a terrific new book cheap speech how disinformation poisons are politics and how to cure it. you want to ask rick number of questions about the book and talk with them about it. and then what very much to get your questions, so please be sure to send them in to the youtube chat. rick i find the title of the book quite provocative when you call it cheap speech. what do you mean by cheap? speech? well first let me thank the commonwealth club for putting this form together. i would have hope we could by this time be doing it in person, but hopefully next time that we're together having conversation. we'll be able to do it face to face and thank you erwin as always for agreeing to be the interlocutor here. so the term cheap speech is not mine. it's a term that originates with a professor at ucla law school in eugene. volik. he wrote an article in the yale law journal back in 1995 where he was talking about the coming information revolution as in many way

fact of the matter is, more gun laws and restrictive gun laws do not lessen crime. have to restate the last thing i said in our previous second amendment infringement hearing, that if you look at countries, for instance, el salvador, jamaica, venezuela, honduras, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, they're also the most dangerous countries in the world with the highest homicide and violent crime rates. let's not, it shouldn't escape predators that democratic -controlled cities in our country with the most restrictive gun laws in our nation have actually higher murder rates than those aforementioned countries. st. louis has a higher murder rate than el salvador. so does baltimore. it's actually safer to visit and live in venezuela than it is to live and visit detroit, michigan. 50 years ago, there were 180 million guns in this country, the murder rate was 9.6 400,000. just before covid, there are almost 400 million guns in the country, at the murder rate was six per hundred thousand. again, more gun laws, that doesn't equal less crime. mr. b

laws, that's when you're going to _ and laws, that's when you're going to he _ and laws, that's whenc news. our top stories: the usjustice department is ordered to release a redacted version of the evidence that prompted the fbi to search donald trump's mar—a—lago home. safety concerns at the zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in ukraine, after the russian—occupied site is temporarily disconnected from the national power grid. russia should agree to demilitarised zone around the plant — demilitarised zone around the plant and agreed to allow an international atomic energy agency— international atomic energy agency visit as soon as possible. drought and record temperatures in china threaten rivers and crops, putting several provinces on a national red alert. and — back from the brink. the large blue butterfly has its best summer in 150 years.

federal law invalidates state laws that are in direct contradiction. this has really nothing to do with anything that the supreme court said, and certainly nothing to do with going around the supreme court. >> thank you all. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. ♪ announcer: c-span now free mobile app. keep up with floor proceedings from the u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. download it free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ announcer: c-span's the weekly podcast brings you over 40 years of audio recordings from our video library. comparing the events of the past to today. >> in this episode of the weekly, we remember katharine graham by learning from her, specifically her leadership secrets, her skills, gr

i'm the one upholding the law here. the law is clear in florida.ek ban is unconstitutional, and i said i'm not going to enforce it. >> i know that you have been suspended. what is your thought on the an tis paugs of possibly being reinstated by the florida state senate. they don't actually come back into session, i think, until march. do you intend to go back to work tomorrow nonetheless? >> i'm going to continue doing what the hillsboro county citizens elected me to do, which is keep our neighborhoods safe and promote fairness and justice and a rule of law. i've done that every day for the past five and a half years and i'm not going to stop now. the reality is the governor can sign some order in his pen or his crayon, and it doesn't stop what the voters voted for me to do. >> it will be an interesting morning tomorrow in your office. thank you for being part of the show. thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. >>> look, the context is as clear as the latest republican polling, by the way. governor desantis is the only republican besides donal

i'll follow the law. you're watching american history tv on c-span as we look back at what the current justices said about roby way during their confirmation hearings justice neil gorsuch was asked about the 1973 decision as well. senator again, i would tell you that roe versus wade decided in 1973. the president united states supreme court it has been reaffirmed. the reliance interest considerations are important there. and all the other factors that go into analyzing precedent. to be considered it is a precedent of the united states supreme court. is reaffirmed in casey in 1992. in several other cases so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other what about griswold which was decided a few years before row the case where the court found constitutional right to privacy? can you tell me your views on griswold? center it's a precedent. it's now. 50 years old griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive