when you read his opinions, all of that put together, his opinions are quite astonishing often in their impression. if you read his own, for example, i don't think there's a better piece of writing about the hazards of surveillance state, and his opinions are imbued with a deep and abiding wisdom. i thought maybe what i -- rather than just saying all of these things about those opinions, i should just give you a sample. of course, professor urofsky is going to talk about brandeis and the life he led and what made him great, but in this celebration of brandeis, i think the way to celebrate justice brandeis is to read justice brandeis. i will give you my favorite supreme court opinion of all time, of all time, bar none. this is his concurring opinion in whitney, which is a first amendment case. you know, people, they know -- more people know about holmes on the first amendment, when you think about the foundations of first amendment law the name that frequently comes to mind is oliver wendel holmes, fire in a theater, clear and present danger, marketplace ideas. those were incredible phra

that they were in are incredible opinion, but in my view, the opinion that most gets at the first amendment, what it means to this country and why this is so important to our nation is this opinion in whitney versus california, because it's in this opinion where what justice brandeis does is he connects it to the deepest values of american civic life. he talks about how what the first amendment does and the purpose of the first amendment is ultimately to develop the faculties in order to participate in american democracy and it's the beauty of that commitment is mirrored and is brought out by the beauty of his prose. i just thought i would read some of it for you, and i warn you, this is going go on for a few minutes because i'm going to read about two and a half long paragraphs, but to my mind, as i said, the best way to celebrate justice brandeis is to read justice brandeis. so here it is. those who want our independence believe that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitr

he wrote 1056 signed public opinion. he was producing 20% more opinions than the average production of his fellow active judges. his opinions clarified roughly every area of the law he touched to pick in addition to run the time of this judgeship he wrote scholarly articles, making seminal contributions to our understanding of federal jurisdiction, administrative law, judicial discretion, the common-law process in the federal courts and criminal law. it is a measure of the respect shown by the supreme court and other courts for friendly rulings that have been cited as precedent with greater frequency than those of any other judge the low the supreme court with the exception of learned hand who as a circuit judge sat ten n more years than judge friendly. in recognition of his greatness, president gerald ford awarded judge friendly the presidential medal of freedom, our nation's highest civilian honor. today, as we reflect on judge friendly's greatness, we are so happy to have with us more than two dozen family members, in

it change public opinion.he second observation i would make is that, in the court's most recent decision, which was , thed about in 2007 majority opinion does recognize more specifically been previous decisions that pregnancy involves a living human organism . that is perhaps most expressed that the court has been in the 42 years. justice egg knowledge the fact that medical knowledge is that a certain state that would continue to evolve. in various medical procedures attended lectures. and arguments you have back to minnesota for the summer and spent much of the summer at the mayo clinic researching abortion, history, procedures. opinion hasime, his a very long description of the medical history. as clark says, medical technology was not nearly as advanced as it is today. the flat kinds of fetal monitoring is something we had not had. this idea that we would have -- of knowledge of fetal the fetus is not something we had. host: what kind of court did he administer? melissa: it was a very different chief justic

marshall would modify his own opinions in order to gain approval for his opinions for the court. he didn't dominate the court's thinking by force but instead established and maintained an atmosphere during conferences that was conducive to compromise. just as he won over his political adversaries, he also won over his fellow justices who were mostly jeffersonian through his judicial temperament and commitment to compromise. william johnson, the first dissenter, because he wrote the court's first recorded dissent, more often than not agreed with marshall. in 1804, jefferson had appointed johnson to the court for the specific purpose of countering marshall's growing influence on the court. and in a series of increasingly urgent letters in 1822, jefferson kept urging johnson to dissent. in nearly every case. but johnson disappointed jefferson by supporting marshall 96% of the time. and even when he dissented, johnson was apologetic in a case where he wrote, i have the misfortune to dissent from the majority of my brethren. in response to jefferson's prompting to reinstitute separate

chief justice roberts wrote the opinion for the court and it was the opinion of the court except for one footnote. three justices joined his entire opinion, justices kennedy, briar and alito, thomas and gorsuch said they would join all of it but for the three and justice ginsburg said the way i read it, vehement dissent drawn by justice ginsburg. chief justice roberts said the discrimination against rnl must meet the most exacting scrutiny. supposed to meet strict scrutiny meaning government action must seem to be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose. the court here found strict scrutiny wasn't met. and said missouri's goal was to stay as far as possible away from violating the establishment clause by giving aid to religious institutions. he said that's not a compelling government interest. they said the key issue would be lot versus davey distinguishable? and chief justice roberts said yes. he said first in lot versus davey, the aid was being denied because of what joshua davey was doing, going to seminary. this is denying aid because of what the institution is, a re

provocativeover opinion. the executive order, second one the president had issued citing .ational security the executive order said the purpose of the travel ban was to reduce the burdens on homeland security. there are two more courts about have blocked the ban. this isonale is that unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion. another court says we do not need to reach that constitutional question, where we will uphold an injunction against event because the president exceeded his authority under immigration laws. the president asked for two things. he wants the court to hear the appeals of both those rulings and to block the travel ban in the meantime. because of the temporary nature of it, it creates this unusual dynamic where the stay application and marriage question intersect in an unusual way. one of the court does on the stay application might be the entire ballgame because the order might expire before the court hears arguments. cutting to the chase, it lets part of the ban takes effect.

there was a lead opinion written by justice alito, and a concurring opinion by justice kennedy, also signed by four justices, to avoid making broad pronouncements about what the right framework for thinking about trademark law is in general. it was very focused just on one provision the anti-disparagement , provision. the central theme that emerges from the various analytical approaches in these separate opinions is really this, that no --ter whether you concede of conceive of a federal trademark registration program as a kind of government subsidy to mark holders, or whether you consider it a regulation of commercial speech or any other kind of category under the first amendment, what the government cannot do in the context of that >> what the government cannot do is attempt to suppress speech on the basis of viewpoints that it expresses. essential move the court makes an essential first amendment take away from the case is that theng offense to people is question of a viewpoint. the government that argued it was not because the applied acrossan the board purity cannot disparage or

corwin call davis's opinion fustian. it was childish to think it was a precedent in times of crisis, lincoln's actual example. to understand what has happened to milligan, one has to recognize a basic irony. milligan articulated the general principle of government rulings as well as rules, that constitutional protection was not suspended by the war but the specific holding established a very rigid rule for a very particular circumstance. it specified that american citizens who were not themselves combatants could not be tried by military commissions when ordinary courts were available, open and unobstructed. it did not apply, for example, to american indians, tribes violating the rule als of war on combat against american troops. it did not apply to filipinos fighting against the war there. it did not involve american citizens when ordinary courts were open. it was natural in 1920 congress authorized military commissions to try violations of the laws of war. in ex parte kuirtin, tsupreme court made the limitations of the

and that's how the opinion went to the court. this was not a headline move or a bold statement of the importance of stare decisus. like the wonderful opinion of justice carter, sutter and kennedy in cases versus planned parenthood, but it taught me how deeply the chief believed in the moral authority of the court. and how he thought it was connected to the channel of thought, sometimes quite broad, sometimes narrow, created by prior decisions of the court. when it came to drafting an opinion, the chief always initiated the process with what he called thoughts while shaving. messages he would dictate. these were the days of dictating machines overnight into an early answering machine for his secretary that would be typed and distributed to us. they gave us a sense of his approach to the first draft, including his analysis of the various arguments and relevant cases. we then would do triple-spaced drafts with wide margins that would allow him ample space for writing comments with that ever-present felt-tip pen. every draft of every

is the best opinion you ever wrote a dissenting opinion, majority opinion or a concurring opinion? >> i don't think that's up to me to say. ( laughter ) i'd say i'm not necessarily a good -- well, maybe the best i ever wrote -- i don't know. i've written some majorities i was very pleased with. one of them was in this case involving a student from thailand who goes to cornell, and he december -- he discovers the same textbooks in bangkok, half the price. he says to his parents, send me a few. they sent more than a few. he began to sell them. publishers got annoyed. can he do it or not? lawsuit in our court. the answer lies in a few observe secure word in a statute no one can understand very well, and we received briefs from all over the world. i ended up writing the opinion. i felt like i had to know what goes on in different parts of the world. the student eventually won. but that's not the point. the point is to do a decent job in that case -- >> rose: you have to know. you have to know what else goes on elsewhere. that's the majority. the assent is probably in the affirmative ac

an honest opinion is an opinion that tells the real reason why the judge is deciding this way. and we cite law review articles. we cite briefs, we cite all kinds of things. so i don't see anything wrong with citing whatever people want to cite. and as far as an audience can concerned, for our opinions, abroad, no, i mean that's their problem, that's not my problem. my problem is to get this thing done correctly. but in doing this things correctly, it may turn out such as the examples that i have given you where it's very helpful to know what other people have done. and so if other people find what we get done is helpful to them, that's fine, but that's their problem, not our problem. my problem is to get this opinion written correctly. that's hard enough before i take on a few others. >> one last question, if someone were going to make a summer study of important nonamerican legal texts to better understand the global judiciary, do you have any that you would recommend for their review? >> i would read barack's things, he's written on this, and i would try to read something abo

salone on his opinion about the significance of the decision. i also think that the united states of america's very fortunate that this case came along early in its history because previously with the bank of the united states that had -- there was constructionitutional there as to who was decide. it was -- it was also the alien's acts under president john adams that created such a turmoil. and i think that the federal ending of the marbury versus madison, if you ever been to the supreme court when you walk in there's that gigantic sculpture on marshall, didn't leave any doubt to who is the most significant ever of the supreme court. >> in the view of the court. >> it is in the court. and actually david, i think both of the things that you mention cut against your point in a certain way. so, people have been talking, oh the supreme court is the ultimate interpreter of the constitution. not quite and i'm not endorsing kim davis here. let's talk about the aliens decision act. this was a law john adams signed that made it a crime to criticize the p

he wrote the opinion, the majority opinion. it was a split opinion, by fourr decision. the reaction to the decision was on the law enforcement community very negative -- five-four. and very reluctant and very suspecting. so the law enforcement community said it's not our job to get people we arrest information about their legal rights. that ought to come from the lawyer. it's not our job to get them lawyer. what you're going to do by this decision is the end result will be a lot of people will not be charged with crimes that they committed when they should be charged with crimes that they committed. and the reason we can't charge is because they didn't admit it. so the admission of those crimes is a very important element of all law enforcement, understandably so. so the reaction was negative, largely. "time" magazine and "newsweek" and other magazines and other newspapers, there was an awful lot of coverage about this in 1966. .. we will examine cases that involve the miranda warning. but quit telling us that it's a rules prophylactic rules case. it's a constitutional

there were only two court opinions coming in that were federal court opinions. the other was -- which up held another law. it was either an 8 hour day or a 10 hour day for public employees. public employees are part of the contract in a way. the government's part of the contract. so both of those cases were up held. so all of the cases that were in the supreme court at the time this case came up, upheld restrictions on our -- and it's somewhat of a myth even going forward from the lochner case that the supreme court struck down a lot of economic regulations. it struck down some but upheld far more -- the bake shop act was a very elaborate and safety law that the lochner court itself upheld to protect the public -- especially to protect the public but others as well including the bakers. just the one provision was struck down. >> we're going to learn more about the justice who wrote the majority opinion in our next piece of opinion, returning to the new york legislator. >> now, justice peckham who wrote the majority for the supreme court of united states decision

two court opinions that were coming in that were federal court opinions. one was upheld an eight hour day on mining and manufacturing. and the other was atkins versus kansas, which upheld another law. it was either an 8 hour day or 10 hour day for public employees, which is a whole different bailiwick. public employees are part of the contract in a way. so both of those cases were upheld. all of the cases that were in the supreme court at the time this case came up upheld restrictions on hours. >> it's somewhat of a myth going-forward from the lachner case, that it struck down regulations. it struck down some, but i want to go back to where we were at the beginning of the show, that is, that the bake shop act was a very elaborate health and safety law that the lachner court itself upheld to protect both the public, especially to protect the public and others as well. it upheld the constitution. that's the evil terrible lachner court did that. >> we're going to learn more about rufus peckham, the justice who wrote the majority opinion in our next piece of v

so it is a story but has the opinion inside. and the opinion they want you to buy. >>. >> i don't like the term fake news as a practitioner i cannot comprehend. >> but that is the art of the problem with the do technology that allows of bad guys to promote the agenda to find those destructive evans. >> here is another audience question what is truelove ai and data to target individuals? that gets to the weaponization. >>. that is one of the key lessons. and also from the experiments. the machine will always be the machine. but the human behind the machine should be the greatest expert war over you would rather have a good operator. >> explained that more. >> so in terms of ratings like those 28 cities it was 2861 and early 2800 the we're talking about this category. to dave machines play at the rate of 2300. you don't have to be a very strong player. you would rather have a 2000 player to assist the machine. and the savings have been. because it is very important for us to understand the role. and we know exactly what we can add

is diversity of opinion allowed? not if your opinion strays from the company line. he is exploring legal options. silicon valley and free speech could be headed to court. relax, everyone, the judges that the shortly. mary is. just as important, your money. will the doubt make it to 10 record in a row? if it goes up today, yes it is and reports in a row. just the inauguration of president trump value has gone up to $.3 trillion. since the election for $.1 trillion. question, while those rich democrats who hate the president, will they give it all back? dream on. great to be back with you all. "varney & company" is about to begin. ♪ dream to north korea commit serious stuff from u.s. spy satellite detected north korea voting to anti-ship cruise missiles on a patrol boat on the country's east coast days ago. remember north korea vowed to strike america with thousands fold revenge after the united nations imposes sanctions in response to a recent missile launch. president trump just treated this this morning. after many years of failure, countries are coming together to

everybody has an opinion. that is a good thing. it is part of being a community . >> it is interesting. we live in a world where -- we say, a news outlet is of this perspective or that perspective. and many times, we go to that news outlet to support what we already believe about the world or in some cases, want to find out about a different perspective, even though we may or may not agree with it. it is interesting because here in the community, the 'jay' basically encompasses the diversity itself. and so a diverse community has diverse opinions. when it comes down to it, on an editorial level -- time to time, when somebody is literally reading something, how do you decide a particular perspective -- any particular time about anything happening in the world -- via an election -- a country like israel or a situation in another part of the world with a jewish perspective. >> you have this central delicate balancing act that, i as the editor and 'jay' with publication, have to engage in every day. we have two roles. we are a communit

and from all the opinions. in other words, chief justice chase not only dissenned from justice miller's majority opinion in brad well, he also dissenned from justice bradley's concurring opinion. one wonders whether had he been healthy, the chief justice might have been able to persuade one of the slaughter house five justice majority to side with the dissenters reading of the privileges or immunities clausz. how different history would have been had he been able to do that. indeed, standing here, i sometimes wonder whether the medical marijuana case of gonzales versus raich which i argued right here in this courtroom, might have been decided differently if chief justice rehnquist who along with justices thomas and o'connor sided with us had not been so gravely ill that year. he couldn't even sit in on the argument that year. in bradwell, the three slaughter house dissenters felt obligated to justify the state's restrictions on liberty of women to practice law. but by 1896, thanks to justice miller's approach i