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

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

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

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

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

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 is 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 than her talents and even a recounted destruction for some time. and it was so complex that you would never have thought of that in your life. they had $25.00 intermediate stairs. 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 out top, there are off troll tough trying to people sitting there. their

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 owes you broadens it all for years. viagra and his colleagues set up come ex funds, winning over banks and rich investors for the deals and immediately advising that in terms of taxation. everything was completely legal. this company, it was just no consensus and us 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 hon. oh, bagger relies on a legit loopholes in the law and since the legislator had not close them, the deals were legal. can this be true? are huddled gaga and all the other comics players really just victims of law enforcement as they claim ah, when boy he can take over the investigation. there is, in fact not a single verdict declaring the deals to be in violation of criminal law. maga, on the other hand, can side scholarly articles by well known professors. and there are many expert

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

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

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

a law school professor?r were you nervous the first year or so? justice breyer: [laughs] i got pretty nervous. i remember talking to a friend of mine that i was an undergraduate with, and he was there too. we both said, well, this is the end of our great careers after our first year. [laughter] and we both did pretty well in law school. david: you were in the harvard law review, and sometimes you get to clerk on the supreme court for another justice and you clerked for -- justice breyer: arthur goldberg. david: and what was that like? justice breyer: it was terrific. he was great. he was an enthusiast, had loads of energy. jack kennedy said he was the smartest man he ever met. david: so you clerked for him and then you went to teach at harvard law school. justice breyer: that's right. david: when you went to harvard law school, did you say, "this is going to be my life?" "i am going to be a professor, nothing terrible about that, you can teach great law school students." or did you say, "maybe i will be on t

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

no jim crow laws that we had up until the 1960s. no one should stand in a polling place location in any way shape or form block you from voting. that's a civil rights battle that we fought in the 60s. we need to preserve and extend those gains, but everyone in this country also has a second civil right, which is not to have their vote canceled out nullified by someone who shouldn't be voting someone who's dead. look i believe in, you know, honoring our elders and honoring our ancestors, but i don't believe in representation without respiration and someone who's dead someone who's moved out of state someone who doesn't exist someone who's registered from a post office boxer vacant lot or who's a hasn't yet had rights restored when that happens election results are tainted illegitimate and people lose confidence in the election process. i'll just conclude by saying that it's unfortunate that the media in the last. year or so has decided to completely ignore one side of the story. the headlines are full of articles about voters suppres

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

she went on to attend harvard law school where she was a top student and editor of the prestigious law review, and then she alied for a highly competitive 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 steven breyer, whose seat i am nominating her to fill. not only did she learn from justice breyer himself, she saw the great rigor with which justice breyer approached his work, and she learned from his willingness to work with colleagues with different viewpoints. now, years later, she steps up to fill justice breyer's place in the court with a uniquely accomplished and wide-ranging background. she served both in public service as a federal public defender, a federal public defender and a private law practice with a prestigious law firm. if confirmed she will join justice sotomayor has the only other member in the supreme court that has experience as a trial judge, and once again, she became the only member of the court that previously served as a member of the u

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

international law. some of the possible consequences are terrifying to contemplate. regional tensions are rising. there are high stakes for all. it will have widespread impact. we must live up to the principles of the charter. mr. president, the guns are talking now, the present dialogue must always remain open. it is never too late to address all issues. i hope that the talks will produce not only immediate stop to the fighting, but also a diplomatic solution. i welcome all peaceful efforts to stop the bloodshed. i think the countries -- u.n. is prepared to support such efforts. mr. president, war is not the answer. it is death, human suffering and an immense destruction from the real challenges facing humanity. healing the divide and some many other pressing challenges. humanity cannot afford -- we need to look forward to overcome the scourge of war. we need to talk about solving problems, not making them worse. people are taking to the streets and demanding an end to war. people want and need peace.

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

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

maybe it's the confines of law of big law. maybe it's as a defense attorney. maybe it's in policy or prosecution, but it's entire ecosystem and the more we just okay singularly on issues of reform surrounding a police interaction. well, you miss the rest of the iceberg, right? you know, that's well you miss everything else. they're injustices. you write about it in your book the rate of innocence the ideas of how this ecosystem operates. imagine if people only thought about the headline police interactions you would miss the overwhelming the 90% of what really is going on because you think well, that's the only power that can be wielded. so yeah, i tell and that you tell your students and through your book as well talking about if you don't have an eye towards every facet of the ecosystem the world will turn without you absolutely structural racism. yeah variable for you or i mean for those were really vulnerable you write about you know this and and the ways in which sociology interacts and policy and and again, it'll mental health and police has the panacea

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

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

i'm not the law. i'm merely the influencer of it. no originalist, of course, justice stevens, but a methodological overlap and underlying different assumptions. >> to go back to where scalia and thomas diverge, i think there is the traditional modesty theory is not a bad one but it doesn't explain everything. the case i remember is honda. i forget which one. basically scalia and stevens -- >> detaining. i litigated. it was personal for him. >> scalia and thomas are genuine good faith originalist. the court will allow detention, but only under matthews versus eldridge standards. and you have the two poles. ct and stevens if i recall are the two extremes. and from a modesty standpoint, scully is the most interventionist. they are saying you can't do this at all without some sort of congressional statute. and he says, you're the president, you do what you want. if modesty is our theory, that answers it exactly. to my mind, it may be as simple as originalism is to me, just asking the right questions. it's

saying the law impedes law enforcement operations in misses sorry.tutional because it challenging the supremacy of federal law. >> ken, thank you. >>> also new this morning, a new study just released on the surge in gun violence during the coronavirus pandemic with firearms now the leading cause of death for american children and teens. the giffords law center score card say states with strong gun laws see less gun violence, california, new york, new jersey, maryland, colorado. on the flip side, the lowest rated states are the most responsible for exporting guns used for crimes in other states. montana, missouri, iowa, all getting an f rating. joining us allison anderman from giffords law center which tracks and analyzing firearm registration in all 50 states. so glad you could be with us today. this new report shows gun violence is surging during the pandemic. i think a lot of us knew that. but by how much and what are you finding is behind the surge? >> we are seeing that unfortunately in most major cities around the united states there has been a

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

so i think and obviously law enforcement is at the heart of this and for law enforcement, you know, the training is is essential but also, you know healthcare workers teachers those in the child welfare system those in transportation truckers against another great organization. you know where we're a truck drivers are actually also looking out for this. so i think training is a really good tool to build awareness. as well as opposing requirement as well as just other community opportunities where you know, there's volunteer work in ways to support survivors. and if it's okay, maggie, i'm just going to mention also that we have a really tremendous child sex trafficking team at the national center. a lot of their services are analytical services that they provide directly to law enforcement, but they also provide tremendous recovery support services for child welfare foster parents law enforcement victim advocates so that when children are a recovered there is a victim centered and an appropriate recovery system that is really designed to make sure those children receive the recovery serv

last month as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law. can you talk about how important it is to educate drivers and especially teens about the dangers of distracted driving and what more we need to do? i mean there's carrots and there's makes, more needs to happen. -- there's sticks but more needs , to happen. dr. cliff: thank you. the number of people who die in traffic accidents every year as likely to be underreported. it is difficult to determine distraction as a cause for a roadway fatality. nevertheless, we know it is an important issue. we are committed to working on this. we appreciate the new resources that are in the bipartisan infrastructure law to help us do additional research on this and we actually look at the state and local actions that can be taken to educate those in their state when distraction is a particular issue, so thankfully, about a 30% increase in the budget goes to state highway safety offices, and will help in that education role you mentioned. sen. klobuchar: right, and i think we will see how important tha

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

but tell us what the law is. the presidential records act and what you had been trying to secure, not only during the trump administration, but previous presidential administration. yes. so the president of records act was passed to make it clear that the records of a president belong to the american public. there. our records, our history, not the personal records of a president, they are the right and the act also makes it clear that the president has a legal obligation. well, he or she is an office to create and preserve records. the whole idea behind this statute is that this isn't a significant part of our history that needs to be created and preserved. obviously, present in trumps actions are completely at odds with that statue. i know the post reporting, which is quite incredible, has, you know, i think revealed just how systemic and ongoing it was. but we filed 3 separate lawsuit against president trump early on from not in 2017. shortly after taking office came out that aids were using encrypted, disappe

did you know you are going to be a great law school student and become a potential law school professoror your nervous the first year or so -- were you nervous the first year or so? >> i talked with someone who was with me in undergrad. we both had great careers after our first year. >> you are in the harvard law review, sometimes you get to clerk on the supreme court for another justice and you clerked for -- >> grover. >> what was that like? >> jack kennedy said he was the smartest man he ever met. >> you went to teach at harvard law school. did you say this is going to be my life? nothing terrible about that. or did you say, maybe someday i will be on the supreme court, a judge? >> i thought maybe someday. anybody who thinks maybe someday, i do not want to say there is something wrong with it, but there is something wrong with it. >> you got a very good reputation. senator kennedy invited you to come down and work on his staff work on regulatory reform. that is where i first encountered you when i was working on capitol hill. you have a good reputation. then-president carter nominate

the law. federal law provides a penalty of up to three years in prison for anyone who, quote, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, mutilates. if you attempt to do any of that to federal records, just attempted, you are guilty of a crime that carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison. and anyone convicted of that crime shall, quote, forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the united states. donald trump mutilated documents in the white house according to eyewitnesses. he tore them up. we have i testimony that donald trump violated that federal law that carries a prison sentence and barr some from ever holding office again. and there is one word of objection to any of that criminal conduct that eye witnesses have described, seeing donald trump doing, ripping up documents. not one word of objection. from the leaders of the republican party because, as congressman jeffries explained this week,

we've had that law in-person voting 1980's, but that was not the law for early voting and most folks vote early. what about getting off work, a lot of our friends talk about the other side working folks, hey, those are my people, those who work for a living, those are my voters, we care about all voters, what about them? the law in texas for a long time said for election day if your work schedule does not allow you to be able to get off work, your employer must let you get off day to work. and that's election day, and now in the bill it says early voting and we've put in ways for everyone. and we did have them try to abuse covid and the same county on the cusp to mail out millions for those who weren't eligible to vote and we put a stop to that in texas. >> what kind much questions-- we have people with microphones, raise your hand. see whether first we have any virtual? let's take one of those and one hand up here in the room. yeah, go ahead. you need a microphone over here. thank you, ashley. >> all right. so here is the first question. louisiana is the remaining state with the pap

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