i don't think there is substantive day light betwebetwee between .petitioner's use and ours. it meant in treating it as a category. i think sums up the reality of what is happening. we broke it out into its component parts because i think it facilitates the analysis of it to understand that miller does have a procedural component. sentencing courts must now consider the mitigating characteristics of age. but it also and more fundamentally, in our view, contains a substantive component that required a change in the law. now, the change here was expanding the range of outcomes. previously when this court has analyzed substantive changes in the law there have been changes that restricted the form of outcomes, say, for example, in justice breyer's hypothetical forbidding punishment at all. i think that, if you trace back the origins of the substantive category to justice harlan's opinion in mackie, this is still faithful to what justice harlan had in mind. justice harlan said the clearest case of an injustice in not applying a rule retro actively is when it puts off limits altoge

no. 5, the petitioner shall be responsible of the adjacent area which they have control. no. 6, loitering to stand idly about without lawful business. it's prohibited on any sidewalk or property adjacent to the licensed premise under the control of the licensee. no. 7, graffiti shall be removed from the premise and all parking lot under the control of the licensee within 72 hours of application. if it occurs on friday or weekend day or on a holiday, licensee shall remove the graffiti within 72 hours following the beginning of the next weekday. no. 8, the anterior lighting maintained there on shall be sufficient to make easily discernable appearance and conduct of all persons and patrons where the portion where alcohol beverages are sold, delivered or consumed. no. 9, the exterior of the property shall be including lighting and not include any neighboring residence. petitioner shall not make changes to the premise without prior written approval from the department. >>supervisor john avalos: great. thank you, sergeant george. there were two letters of support in the packet

and so by what reason could a federal habeas petitioner now not say under the united states' new test booker is now ret retroactive or aileen for that matter. aileen overturned the mandatory minimum under the sixth amendment opening up new sentencing outcomes. why couldn't a federal defendant on federal habeas say now i ought to get the benefit of that rule retroactively? our position is those cases, booker aileen, aprendy are clearly procedural. as this case explained in summerlin. they're clearly procedural. and what the united states would do is blur those categories. if there are no further questions. >> thank you, counsel. mr. bernstein, you have three minutes remaining. >> what this fantastic discussion has shown is why the court, as it always has in the past, should keep the teague exception as a matter of equitable discretion rather than constitutional requirement. the court has much more freedom, generally speaking, on a matter of equitable discretion than it does on constitutional requirements. there's no way to look at the prior precedents of the court in teague and any of

petitioners who forced the recall election say they'r'runhappy council membmbs support annexing some property without regard for future costs. << >> weather ad-lib after a frosty start to friday for many, we won't see much relief this afternoon as temperatures only rise into the 50s making for football festivities tonight! there is another frost/freeze threat late tonight/saturday mornininfor areas east of sisix city where your temperatures will drop to near 30 degrees. see graphics. >> a south sioux cici, nebraska woman and her husband from schuyler have died in a fiery collsion with a semitrailer. 26-year-old liliana chavez-ortiz and 28-year- old jorge medina were killed in which happened late wednesday fremont. authorities say the couple's suv crossed the nter line and rammed into the truck, which was hauling a combine. the truck driver, 53- year-old vernon white of ringsted, iowa was rescued from the cab and flown to an omaha hospital for treatment. a nebraska man who had part of his hand re- attached after a freak accident severed it this summerers now speaking about the episode

petitioners who forced the recall election say they're unhappy council members support annexing some property without regard for future costs. a frosty start for some folks in siouxland. willlle see temps tumble e ain, tonight? chief meteorlogist ron demers joins us with our first look at the forecast at 5. freeze warning in effect for eastern siouxland early saturday morning frost advisory for southeastern siouxland early saturday morning after a frosty start to friday for many, we could see more patchy frost tonight, especially in eastern siouxland where a freeze warning is in effect for some. once we get beyond saturday morning, temperatures will start warming for us. hundreds of ssuxland women wore red today to support heart health. the "go red for women" luncheon took place today at the marina inn and conference center in south sioux city, nebraska. heart disesee is the number one e kikier of women. d, the event supports the american heart association in the fight against heart attack and stroke. "when i see the ladies in the sea of red, i get goose bumps," says linda wadedo joc

and so by what reason would a federal atheist petitioner now. sandra the men's eights new test it is retroactive or alleyne for that matter. alleyne overturned the mandatory under the sixth amendment, opening up new sentencing outcomes. why couldn't a federal defendant on federal hideous say i also get the benefit of that rule retroactively. our position is those cases are clearly procedural, as is this explained in sierra v. summerlin. they're clearly procedural under the teague rubric. and what the united states could do is learn these categories. if there are no further questions. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. bernstein, you have three minutes 14 remaining. mr. bernstein: what this fantastic discussion has shown is why the the court, as it has in the pass code should keep the tea sections as a matter of equitable discretion rather than the constitutional are met. the court has met for freedom, generally speaking on the matter of equitable discretion that it is unconstitutional or miss. >> all weekend long, on the road to the

human story and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. 759, maranda, petitioner versus arizona. >> arguments number 18, roe against wade. >>

no. 5, the petitioner shall be responsible of the adjacent area which they have control. no. 6, loitering to stand idly about without lawful business. it's prohibited on any sidewalk or property adjacent to the licensed premise under the control of the licensee. no. 7, graffiti shall be removed from the premise and all parking lot under the control of the licensee within 72 hours of application. if it occurs on friday or weekend day or on a holiday, licensee shall remove the graffiti within 72 hours following the beginning of the next weekday. no. 8, the anterior lighting maintained there on shall be sufficient to make easily discernable appearance and conduct of all persons and patrons where the portion where alcohol beverages are sold, delivered or consumed. no. 9, the exterior of the property shall be including lighting and not include any neighboring residence. petitioner shall not make changes to the premise without prior written approval from the department. >>supervisor john avalos: great. thank you, sergeant george. there were two letters of support in the packet

no. 5, the petitioner shall be responsible of the adjacent area which they have control. no. 6, loitering to stand idly about without lawful business. it's prohibited on any sidewalk or property adjacent to the licensed premise under the control of the licensee. no. 7, graffiti shall be removed from the premise and all parking lot under the control of the licensee within 72 hours of application. if it occurs on friday or weekend day or on a holiday, licensee shall remove the graffiti within 72 hours following the beginning of the next weekday. no. 8, the anterior lighting maintained there on shall be sufficient to make easily discernable appearance and conduct of all persons and patrons where the portion where alcohol beverages are sold, delivered or consumed. no. 9, the exterior of the property shall be including lighting and not include any neighboring residence. petitioner shall not make changes to the premise without prior written approval from the department. >>supervisor john avalos: great. thank you, sergeant george. there were two letters of support in the packet

no. 5, the petitioner shall be responsible of the adjacent area which they have control. no. 6, loitering to stand idly about without lawful business. it's prohibited on any sidewalk or property adjacent to the licensed premise under the control of the licensee. no. 7, graffiti shall be removed from the premise and all parking lot under the control of the licensee within 72 hours of application. if it occurs on friday or weekend day or on a holiday, licensee shall remove the graffiti within 72 hours following the beginning of the next weekday. no. 8, the anterior lighting maintained there on shall be sufficient to make easily discernable appearance and conduct of all persons and patrons where the portion where alcohol beverages are sold, delivered or consumed. no. 9, the exterior of the property shall be including lighting and not include any neighboring residence. petitioner shall not make changes to the premise without prior written approval from the department. >>supervisor john avalos: great. thank you, sergeant george. there were two letters of support in the packet

when there is more perfectly available and possible superior remedy available to the petitioner by filing a federal habeas petition? >> so there are several reason, justice alito. first of all, i don't think that it is going to come up in that way to this court because that's not the way states treat their own rules of procedure. i don't think it will be very difficult. there is a principle in the courts' cases that when federal law has been adopted as federal law, the court will review it even if the state could have chosen a different path. >> mr. dreeben, what's the problem -- >> did you misspeak? when federal law is adopted as state law, the federal courts can review it. isn't that what you meant to say? i mean, you're very careful. you don't make mistakes, but i -- >> i think, justice kennedy -- >> you said -- >> this is -- >> when state law adopts federal law as federal law then there is review. okay. >> the state has adopted teague for a reason that does not exist in any of these civil procedure cases, and that is that the state knows that that federal law will be applied to the ve

`sean: five residents represented `a group of 600 petitioners are `asking a strafford county judge `of interest. `out a vote that reinstated the s fire chief. `erin: two local principles are `earning national honors for `efforts in building and `sustaining strong schools. `anna parrill and paula `southard-stevens of those been `named 2015 national `only 59 principals are in `that designation this year. `congratulations to them. `sean: not always an easy job. `kudos to them. `still to come, this may not look `like a courtroom or a classroom, `but the state supreme court `justices are offering students a `special chance to learn about `the judicial system. `>> supporters are facing a `deadline to get a new jump phil. `-- filled. `sean: a portsmouth chef is `showing off impressive skills is `one of the best oyster shockers `around. `sean: it is thursday morning, `october 15. `her side of 30. `a quick jump to either side of `60 this afternoon before we `continue to cool off and really `get a chill down in time for the `weekend. `erin: police are sworn to `protect and serve. `the deputy chi

he is the lead counsel for petitioners in the teacher's io association may ch may come up.s and has arguedmerous cases ic thoue supreme court and in almo every federal appeals court. these cases include the recent constitutional challenge to the affordable care act, and the decisions invalidated board sarbanes-oxley board, monetary relief of the tobacco industry, the plan to adjust the census aned upholding the ban on raciae preferences in california.be mike was one of the legal lawyers and argued before the florida supreme court in the 2000 election florida recount controversy. he's also represented state eney governments, financial endment institutions, telecommunications and energy companies and takingt first amendment, civil rights and challenges to federal government actions. what have you all done? [ laughter ]s & conn next we'll be hearing from kannon shanmugan. he's argued 17 cases before the supreme court. in anumber of areas including patent, anti-trust and ed bankruptcy litigation.rity he's argued several of the most significant securities cases as heard by the supreme court in

, explore and the human story and constitutional dramas behind 12 supreme court decisions. 759, petitionerersus arizona. roeow against wade -- against wade. >>

the commander in chief vetoes a pay raise for the troop, equipment for them that is more modern, petitionering, better benefits for their families because he's worried about domestic discretionary spending and vetoed the defense ball his dish. >> the sequestration cuts were if a greet to by both parties. whatever your view -- >> not by me. >> fine. i'm just saying that the republicans are in embarrassing position of being lectured by a president who does like to spend, about spending. that's weird. >> well what is weird is for a commander in chief to veto a bill to provide more also -- assets he his charge of -- or to veto a defense bill because it's spends to much on military. that weird. it's really weird that a secretary of state would set on the sidelines and watch somebody lie about what happened to their people feel no need to correct the record. that's not just weird. that's unacceptable. dirk. >> if tell you another thing that is weird. you're the last vet left in the race, with senator reb opt -- senator webb occupanting out. -- opting out. this!l)z has been a could i isse here but

`five residents representing a `group of 600 petitioners are `asking a stratford county judge `to invalidate the board's vote `july to fire police chief `bernier. `a conflict of interest is among `the allegations, and in a `separate suit they're asking the `judge to throw out a vote in `april that actually reinstated `the town's fire chief. `jean: the city of franklin will `no longer enforce its curfew `after concern from the aclu. `it applied to anyone under 16. `the aclu says parents and `guardians are in the best `position to know when children `should be home, not the `government. `josh: fighting heroin and ways `to help the economy, those were `two of the issues at the `democratic debate. `they have very different `opinions. `reporter: the challenger in the `mayoral race says when it comes `to helping the city move forward `the current mayor is continue `actually flowing up roadblocks, `while the mayor says he brings `people together to find concrete `solutions to the problems. ``>> they couldn't sit back any `longer and watch our city `crumble. ``>> i have a passion for this `city. `re

`five residents representing a `group of 600 petitioners are `asking a strafford county judge `to invalidate the board' s vote `in july to fire police chief `shawn bernier. `their allegations include a `conflict of interest. `in a separate suit, they are `asking a judge to throw out a `vote in april that actually `reinstated the town' s fire `chief. `erin: two local school `principals are earning national `honors for their efforts in `building and sustaining strong `schools. `anna parrill of the soule school `in salem and paula `southard-stevens of charlestown `middle school have been named `2015 national distinguished `principals. `only 59 principals earned that `designation this year they will `be honored tomorrow at an awards `banquet in washington d.c.. `-- washington, d.c. `sean: still to come on newsnine `daybreak this may not look like `, a courtroom or a classroom, `but the state supreme court `justices are offering students a `special chance to learn all `about the judicial system. `erin: the ski jump at plymouth `high school is no more this `morning but supporters are `, facing a d

the petitioners in this case didn't want -- didn't agree with? things.ght the process was out of control that the state is strapped for money and shouldn't be increasing or maintaining teacher funds and everyone else is getting cut. they thought their money was being put to political views they didn't agree with. the court has been pushing back on the issues in the past, talking about the importance of government employees, first amendment rights, they probably will do the same thing in this case. >> critically important case for unions. >> yeah, even justice scalia and kennedy recognized that because unions are required to represent everyone in the workplace, members and nonmembers alike, it makes sense to have the fair share fees that cover the bargaining that unions do that benefit everyone, better working conditions, fairer wages, and so this novel first amendment theory could undermine the ability of hard working americans to come together and work together for better workplace conditions. >> we're just about out of time. in one sentence what is the

so the petitioners have an intuitive argument, which is, look, if you're trying to gible levelize voters, let's look at t voters. i mean, these border districts in texas that year' talking t about greatly overvalue the votes of the people in those districts relative to the rest of texas, because of the large citizenship gap in those districts that many of the total population just can't possibly t vote. that said, i do think there's on serious logistical issues about trying to switch to citizens , h voting age population. i'm told it can be done. o will smith tells me cit can't b. done. this is the last time you will hear this sentence out of my mouth. i think i agree with paul on this issue. >> 100,000 people heard you sayl that. >> for all d the reasons that ik paul's already touched on. hyb i think it would be a very difficult task to try to come up with it. i think some kind of hybrid opinion that says if can you do it, you can substantiate it. if you can't do it, you don't tu have to.te the notion that you substitute in a new kind of handcuffs on state legislatures in this area, i t

petitioners' conviction is hereby vacated.120 days from the date of this order to release or retry randy steidl. >> when judge mccuskey granted me a new trial, i was still holding my breath because i'd watched guys on death row get a new trial and have the attorney general appeal it and have it taken away, and within 60 days they're strapped to a gurney being executed. >> one thing i could state with a degree of confidence in this business, there's no certainty. no certainty at all. >> randy's fate would now rest in the hands of illinois's new attorney general, lisa madigan who would decide to release randy or try him again. callahan knew he'd have to get his findings to madigan now or live forever with the knowledge that he'd failed to help set an innocent man free. ♪ [engine revving] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ so you don't have to stop., tylenol® 8hr arthritis pain has two layers of pain relief. the first is fast. the second lasts all day. we give you your day back. what you do with it is up to you. tylenol®. >>> the state of illinois was faci

first, it just looks at the construction of the regime, powers and personalities who made it, the petitioners who took it on. the next three parts are about how it works, from about 1920 til its collapse until 1939. so let's go back to the early 1920s and eavesdrop on the commission as it got to work on its first real crisis. we shouldn't be surprised that this would involve south africa, for of all the powers, south africa was the most bent on annexation. during the war south africa documented german atrocities to make the case for its own rule, but once the mandate was secure, policy changed. german settlers were urged to stay and offered south african citizenship and additional native lands were handed over to whites. africans were confined to shrinking reserves and their weapons taken away. then a heavy tax was imposed on hunting dogs to prevent them from living off the land and force them to labor on white farms. by 1922 these policies had driven a group of about 1500 near the orange river -- you can see there listed right there, right at the south of the country -- into real despair. it

and it said it would not have approved the 1872 day of taking had it been built unfair to the petitioners unquote. so they are completely shut down. bands havee te-moak changed hands in leadership. make a stay of the settlement, saying, let's stop this right now. and the other, they want to fire at their attorney. in both cases, the indian claims commission rejects their attempt. they cannot even fire. they are not allowed to fire their own attorney. all right? boko, for his part, responded [at his claim -- indiscernible] said, we hadembers no choice but to take money to try to get the land back. mr. barker said we had no title and our treaty was no good. remain in charge of this claim until the final -- until the payment of money. all right. so, again, we have this grassroots resistance focused on traditional leadership, but we also have the indian claims commission excepting a very strict definition of how this is going to play out that to definitely favors the claims of attorneys, who by this time are really driving to the issue. in 1977, the icc issued a final decision. western shosho

he was one of three petitioners who said it was painful to use the injection procedure in his state.ent very, very strongly that rather than trying to patch up the death penalty's legal wounds one at a time, i would ask for full briefing on a more basic question, whether the death penalty violates the constitution. are we down the road going to face a situation where the death penalty is addressed by the supreme court? >> i said it should be and justice ginsburg joined that opinion. my reasoning set out in 46 pages, i can summarize -- >> we have a lot of it here. it was a big decision. >> there are a lot of studies and things cited but for one thing, i tried to -- i suggested by means of those studies and so forth, sometimes it's the wrong person. very often it is arbitrary. >> african-americans are more likely to be executed than white. >> the study shows an african-american who has convicted of a crime of murder -- >> against a white. >> against a white person, is more likely to be executed than against a black person. the people who have been convicted take on average 18 years bef

and it said it would not have approved the 1872 day of taking had it been built unfair to the petitioners unquote. so they are completely shut down. by 1976, the te-moak bands have changed hands in leadership. traditional's are in charge. the issue two tribal resolutions. they want to make a stay of the settlement, saying, let's stop this right now. and the other, they want to fire their attorney. in both cases, the indian claims commission rejects their attempt. they cannot even fire -- they are not allowed to fire their own attorney. all right? barker, for his part, responded claim -- [indiscernible] one council members said, we had no choice but to take money to try to get the land back. mr. barker made the choice and told the commission we had no title, and the treaty was no good. barker will remain in charge of this plan. until the payment of money. so, again, we have this grassroots resistance focused on traditional leadership, but we also have the indian claims commission accepting a very strict definition of how this is going to play out that to definitely favors the claims of att

one of the reasons was to protect all of missouri's petitioners, especially those members whose plans might not have an anti-assignment provision. we had five groups testify in support of the provision. there were no groups that opposed the legislation. it was approved by the governor on july 9, 2014, went into effect that august. since the implementation of this law, we are not aware of any retiree of our retiree, who has been sold an income stream for all or part of his pension. we have also not received a request from a retiree to make a payment in advance to a service or into an escrow request the. i look forward to any questions you may have. >> thank you viery much for you testimony. dr. kroot, what we've learned from your experience, from the testimony of mr. lord, mr. rossman is that veterans are frequently targeted, probably because it is known that military retirees have pensions the way other public employees do. and so there's a regular stream of income. you mentioned that you saw an ad in a military magazine for one of these pension advances. and i want to put up a couple

human story and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. 759, maranda, petitioner versus arizona. >> arguments number 18, roe against wade. mostite often, many of our famous decisions are when the court took quite an unpopular decision. >> [chanting] cases's go through a few that illustrate dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million who want toople, stick together because they believe in a rule of law. welcome to "landmark cases," our 12 part series exploring some of the people and cases behind some of the supreme court's most famous decisions. let me introduce you to our two guests who will tell you more about the history and the impact of this case. he is the coeditor of a book called the dred scott case. welcome to our program. and martha jones is from the university of michigan and the chair of the african-american studies program at the law school. blacks, whether free or slaves weren't citizens of the united states. they declared unconstitutional the misery top remise -- that limitedromise the spread of slavery and saying cong

senators and petitioner and heroes and talents one should contribute for people of population and having true false of internal nourishment of true success. good conscience. destiny. one has courage for life of destiny, and true meaning and highly noble of nature. one expression for target of goals and principles subnature original possibility and could stand high to be a perfect superior holy person and carrying on ones career. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? supervisor tang? tang tang -- >>supervisor katy tang: i would like to make a motion to appoint toby levy and john elberling. >>supervisor john avalos: we'll take that without objection. thank you. next item. city clerk: [appointments, park, recreation and open space advisory committee] hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending february 1, 2017, and two members, terms ending february 1, 2018, to the park, recreation and open space advisory committee. vacant seat 3, succeeding nicholas belloni, resigned, must be nomi

. >> number 759, petitioner versus arizona. >> number 18, roe against wade. >> quite often, many of our famous decisions are quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who stick together because they believe in the rule of law. host: welcome to landmark cases. our series of looking at the 12 most important cases in supreme court history. tonight we are going to be talking about the case of lochner v. new york, 1905. it is one of the controversial cases of the supreme court, and in fact the story of a banker from utica, new york, whose case gave rise to an era that defied the court for the next 34 years. let me introduce you to our two guests who would tell us more about this important case and why it has been important. randy barnett is at georgetown university law school, he's a professor, author of restoring the lost constitution, resumption of liberty, and he's argued before the supreme court. thank you for being with us. paul kens wrote the book on lochner, his boo

, explore and the human story and constitutional dramas behind 12 supreme court decisions. 759, petitionerersus arizona. roeow against wade -- against wade. >> many of the decisions were quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate are medically and visually what it means to 310 millionciety of different people who stuck together because they believed in the role of all. -- rule of law. >> welcome to landmark cases. our series of looking at the 12 most important cases in supreme court history. ,onight, lochner v. new york 1905. it is one of the controversial cases of the supreme court, and in fact the story of a banker from new york. let me introduce you to our two guests who would tell us more about this important case. randy barnett is that georgetown university law school, professor, author of restoring the lost constitution, resumption of liberty, and he's argued before the supreme court. paul kens wrote the book on lochner, he wrote a book called lochner v. new york. university ofs texas. important? case >> it was made a symbol by teddy roosevelt when he ran. he cl

no. 2, the petitioner shall provide sufficient security personnel who should be identifiable and securityersonnel to facilitate the orderly conduct of patrons each day of the week until 1/2 hour pa

ernest miranda, petitioner versus arizona. >> arguments, number 18. >> quite often, in many of our most famous decisions, are ones the court took that were quite unpopular. >> this decision changed our lives. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening and welcome to c-span and the national constitution center's landmark cases. our 12-part series that looks at the supreme court's most interesting and impactful, historic decisions over the course of our country's history. tonight, we're going to be talking about a case you might not know much about. it's called the slaughterhouse cases. it was the first time that the supreme court reviewed the newly enacted 14th amendment to the constitution. let me introduce you to our terrific guests tonight, here to tell you more about the history and importance of this case. paul clement, a law authority who served during the bush 43 administration. he has argued more than 75 c

i think equal representation is not really what they are talking about so the petitioners have a powerful argument which is if you are trying to equalize voting let's look at voters. total population is not accurate for how many people are eligible to vote much less do vote. the border districts in texas overvalue the votes of the people in the district relative to the rest of texas because of the large citizenship gap in the districts. many of the total population just can't possibly vote. that said, i do think there is serious issues about switching the voting age population. it can be done. paul smith says it can't be done, though. this is the last time you will ever here this sentence out of my mouth. i think i agree with paul on this. for all reasons paul touched on, i think it will be a difficult task to come up with it. i think some kind of hybrid opinion that says you can do it if you can substaniate it. it probably doesn't make sense in the original matter. the notion you would substitute the handcuffs on the state legislatures in this area i think would be consistent with pragma

petitioner versus -- >> we'll hear argument number 18, the roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our decisions are ones that the court took the fight unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who have helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >>> welcome to "landmark cases." our series looking at 12 of the most important cases in the supreme court's history. we learn more about the people and the issues behind them. tonight, we're going be talking about the case of lockner vs. new york, 1905, one of the most controversial cases of the supreme court. the story of a banker from utica, new york, in an case that defined the era for the next 35 years. let me introduce you to our guests -- important in our country's history. randy barnett is georgetown university law school, professor. author of a book called "restoring the law and constitution: the presumption of liberty." he's argued before the supreme court. randy barnett, thank you for being with us.

. >> what is the substantive difference between your formulation and petitioner's formulation? this is substantive because it did away with life imprisonment. you're articulating slightly different. tell me why you see the difference and why your arcticulation? >> the description of the crime at issue as punishable by mandatory life imprisonment and treating that as a category, i think sums up the reality of what is happening. we broke it out into a component parts because it facilitates, mitigating characteristics of age, also contains a substantive component that required a change in the law. now the change here with expanding the range of outcomes, previously when this court has analyzed changes in the law, there have been change that is restricted the form of outcome, say, for example, forbidding finishment at all. but i think if you trace back origins of substantive category to opinion many mackee. the clearest case of an injustice in not applying role is when it puts off limits all together of criminal punishment. he did not say it was the only case. if you consider what

. >> caller: hey, petitioner. thank you very much and thank you to your guest i just want to echo what a terrific program you have, and peter, you're facility at asking questions and getting information conveyed is extraordinary. i have two questions. for your guest. the first, it's been almost 14 years since 9/11. what do you attribute the lack of organized terrorism in this country to over the interim? and then the second question, hypothetical -- sorry -- if, say, a weapon of mass destruction were used in the united states, let's assume we weren't able to stop it, what changes in the rules of law might we want to consider? thank you. >> guest: i'm not sure i understand the first question. did you, pete center. >> host: do you want to rephrase that first question? >> caller: yes. >> host: what are you going for with the first question? >> caller: i look, for example, 14 years oak almost, a couple thousand people were killed by islamic terrorists. that kind of organized effort has not occurred in the intervening

senators and petitioner and heroes and talents one should contribute for people of population and having true false of internal nourishment of true success. good conscience. destiny. one has courage for life of destiny, and true meaning and highly noble of nature. one expression for target of goals and principles subnature original possibility and could stand high to be a perfect superior holy person and carrying on ones career. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? supervisor tang? tang tang -- >>supervisor katy tang: i would like to make a motion to appoint toby levy and john elberling. >>supervisor john avalos: we'll take that without objection. thank you. next item. city clerk: [appointments, park, recreation and open spe advisory committee] hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending february 1, 2017, and two members, terms ending february 1, 2018, to the park, recreation and open space advisory committee. vacant seat 3, succeeding nicholas belloni, resigned, must be nomina

if you look at apodaca, they were rejecting the same arguments that this petitioner is asking the court to accept, which is that the long history of unanimity should bring it into this system. because of the other protections that florida has put in place, even if it's a 7-5 vote, you still have the judge coming behind that jury who, unlike at the guilt phase, where he must accept the jury's findings unless they're not supported by evidence, he or she can disagree or any reason. he or she can give mercy for any reason. and that happens a lot. so we cited some cases in our brief where a man was convicted of murder, in a horrible sexual assault, and by virtue of those two convictions, was necessarily eligible for the death penalty. the jury heard all of the evidence, make a recommendation that he receive the death penalty, and the judge said no, i'm going to sentence him to life. and so this court -- this gets back into the jury versus judge sentencing. but there are some real benefits associated with judicial sentencing. if you go back to profitt, this court recognized the advantages of

petitioner versus -- >> we'll hear argument number 18, the