the ascends, on the merits petitioner loses. as much as i would like it to be an adequate state law ground -- the preliminary matter, this court notes that as cited by the respondent, the following claims are not reviewable based on the doctrine of res judicata. the first one it lists is the batson claim. does that suggest that maybe the court had two reasons? if anything, it is an alternate ruling. the georgia supreme court has said that georgia law allows claims to be revisited on habeas when new facts are presented. it essentially is a different claim. that is the law of georgia. >> thank you counsel. mr. ray, you have two coup minutes remaining. quickly, let me say with regard to what justice alito quoted, that it has just come to our attention that ms. garrett's cousin was arrested, that was on may the first. that was after the verdict had been returned in this case. secondly, if you look at the joint appendix on page 56, where they get the reasons for striking ms. eric, there is no mention of her cousin whatsoever in there

it later said, 192 of joint appendix, it will review the batson claim as to whether petitioner showed any change in the facts sufficient to overcome the res judicata bar. if you put those two together, you could argue that the supreme court decided only a question of state law, namely whether the situation here was such that there could be review of the batson claim. what is your response to that? >> well, the state doesn't argue that. i think the reason for that is because the court said -- the court is going to address step three of batson and said the claim was without merit. >> is it a question of federal or state law as to whether or not petitioner has shown a change, in fact, sufficient to overcome res judicata bar, what justice scalia quoted. is that a state law question? >> that's a state law question. here the court decided it. >> if it's a state law question and they decided against you, what have you got to argue? i thought you would say a federal question. >> in order to decide it, it's exactly like versus oklahoma where the court -- the oklahoma court had to decide the fe

question first. >> and respectfully i disagree with petitioner's counsel on this issue. i believe norfolk and western railway versus hiles, which is this court opinion indicates were states that if there is an issue raised in the lower court and it is raised in the highest court, the georgia supreme court denies discretionary review, then it is for this court on surgery before the lower court spent i don't think this is under georgia law. it seems pretty grounded in the state of georgia yes and that is a pretty hot button issue underwriter in the state, federal courts in georgia but our position in those cases i think there's a case before this court on we hearing on that same issue is the georgia statute of the georgia statute specifically says that is a discretionary appeal to the 1975 habeas corpus act made a discretionary appeal at the because the georgia supreme court was inundated with appeal after appeal. >> has the georgia supreme court ever said anything one way or the other as to whether it is discretion or not? >> in two other cases, they both stayed those as

earnest, miranda versus petitioner. roe against wade.

. >> the petitioner versus arizona. >> good evening and welcome to "landmark cases." our series that explores the people and stories behind some of the supreme court's most important decisions throughout our history. this week the 1952 seizure case. it's officially known as

petitioner said they are tired of the ignorance on the show. they also note she's not a positive roll model for african-american. abc said she had all the quality that make her a great addition to the panel. >>> nba star lebron james covering prince's purple rain. decked out in the billowing blouse and velvet jacket and his team halloween party. he's teammate shared an instagram photo. >>> he has the boots too. although he's a little bitted taller. just a little. movie hitting theater this morning falling short for big name celebrity. bradley cooper brought in 5 million dollars and sandra bullocks our brand is crisis made over $3 million marking the worst film debut in her career. martian held on to top spot bringing in 11 million. >>> the brady bunch enjoying a rare sending off from football. lack at this. gazelle and her kids get in, in then worthy family time. her son and daughter sit cross legged under the sunset. i guess the family that owns that's such a good thing to do for your kids. >>> that's great. show them how to destress. i love t

hello, petitioner. >> when it comes to the republican tax plans the kitchen sink, from a 10% flat taxthe european style consumption taxes ball candidates agree, personal and corporate taxes should be lower to jump start economic growth. so far the tax foundation but out analysis of seven plans it saysed provided enough detail for it to analyze, from bush, cruz, jindal, paul-rubio, santorum, and trump. >> this campaign is pretty exciting if you're a tax guy like me. seven comprehensive proposals so far and perhaps in more as time goes on. i think the campaign is focusing now on the fact that our tax system is broken. needs reform. here's. >> here's a sampling of the plans. jeb bush reduced the income tax brackets to three with the top rate of 28% instead of 39.6. he would cap capital gains tacks at 20% and cut to top corporate tax rid from 35 to 20%. marco rubio wants two personal tax brackets, no capital gains taxes and his corporate tax rate would be 25%. for trump, three brackets and a 20% top rate, capital gains darked at 20% and he want s a 15's top corporate catastrophe rate. the

. >> feel petitioner? trump's epic rant went on for one hour and 35 minutes of trumpness. nine of those, nonstop, against ben carson. trump accused the doctor of making up some of his stories from the past. even re-enacted in the stabbing story, the win, the knife, the buckle, trying to shot i could not have happened the way dr. carson said, and his trumpness did not just good after his rival, oh, no, also the very voters he is trying to win. >> how stupid are the people of iowa? how stupid are the people of the country? to believe this crap. >> they've been trump-craped now. today dr. carson responded at an event in south carolina. >> i'm hopeful his advisers with help him understand the world pathological and recognize that does not denote incurable. it's not the same. it's simply an adjective that describes something that is highly abnormal. and something that fortunately i've been able to be delivered from for a half a century now. >> not incurable can justs a adjective of normalness. earlier in the week dr. car sewn said he was finished talking about his past, saying

the certiorari question first. >> and respectfully i disagree with the petitioner's counsel on thisue. i believe norfolk western rail v. hiles indicates or states that if there is an issue raised in the lower court and it's raised in the state's highest court, in this case the georgia supreme court, but the georgia supreme court denies discretionary review then it's before this court on certiorari from the lower court. >> well, the problem is i don't think this is discretionary review. the 11th circuit found it's not under georgia law, read its opinion. it seems pretty grounded in the stated law of georgia. >> yes, your honor. and that is a -- that's a pretty hot button issue i know right now in the state federal courts in georgia but our position in those cases and i think there's a case before this court on rehearing on that same issue is that georgia statute specifically says that is a discretionary appeal. the 1975 a habeas corpus act made it a discretionary appeal, i think, because the georgia supreme court was getting inundated with appeal after appeal. >> and has the georgia

petitioner versus arizona. row against way. >> and are most famous decisions, -- 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. susan: good evening and welcome to landmark cases. s of the way through our decisions. tonight is school segregation, brown v. board of education. evening byin this listening to linda brown. linda: my memory of brown began in the fall of 1950, and the client kansas town after peak -- topeka. where a black man took his seven-year-old daughter by the hand and walked briskly, four blocks from their home to the all-white school and tried without success to enroll his child. black parents and topeka felt that trying to enroll their children in the school nearest to their home was long overdue. my father would arrive home to find my mother upset because i had to take a walk, just like he did many years before, and catch the school bus and go some two miles across town. i can remember that walk

petitioner versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments on number 18. roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our famous decisions are ones that the court took that before 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 have helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening and welcome to landmark cases. well, we're about 2/3 of the way through the series looking at historic supreme court decisions. tonight the 1954 case of school segregation brown v. board of education. and we'll begin by listening to linda brown on the roots of this case. >> my memory of brown began in the fall of 1950. in the quiet kansas town of topeka where a mild-mannered black man took his 7-year-old daughter by the hand and walked briskly four blocks from their home to the all-white school and tried without success to enroll his child. parents in topeka thought trying to enroll the student nearest to their home was long overdue. ma

we've heard about the wait times experienced by some petitioners. wait times that are particularly harsh for immigrants of some countries. there are other important concerns when we think about families in the united states and our immigration law. i want to first focus on the significant number of u.s. citizen children with a mixed status family. families were at least one member lacks a legal immigration status. 37% of undocumented residents have u.s. citizen children. others live in homes where partners have lawful permanent resident status. what this means is that we have a situation where millions live by family instability and insecurity. we have millions of u.s. citizen children that are living with undocumented caretakers and providers, which puts them in a constant state of threat and uncertainty. what can we do to alleviate that? there are stitches and surgery. what we have seen in recent years our efforts at stitching. the president has proposed different action for parents. that would have been a form of stitching to alleviate some of th

. >> the petitioner versus arizona. >> good evening and welcome to "landmark cases." our series that explores the people and stories behind some of the supreme court's most important decisions throughout our history. this week the 1952 seizure case. it's officially known as youngstown sheet and tube vs. sawyer. we're going to start with a piece of vintage film. it's from a documentary. and it features president harry truman on april 8th, 1952 as he announces to the nation his case. >> with american troops on the field of battle, i would not be living up to my oath of office if i failed to do whatever is required to provide them with weapons and ammunition they need for their survival. therefore, i'm taking two actions. first, i'm directing the secretary of commerce to take possession of the steel mills. >> the issue in this story is the power of the president and its limits. not often is the president's authority directly attacked in a lawsuit, but that is what happened in the administration of harry truman in the second year of the korean war when he ordered the fede

earnest, miranda versus petitioner. roe against wade. >>> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones the court took that were quite unpopular. [ chanting ] >>> 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 helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening. welcome to c-span and the national constitution center's "landmark cases." tonight we're going to be examining a 1944 war powers case that the supreme court. it's the story of korematsu versus the united states. fred korematsu was a japanese-american who challenged the right of the government to forcibly detain people during world war ii. you might know a bit about this history in -- american history during world war ii. many japanese-americans were gathered up. 120,000 by some estimates, and detained through the course of the war. fred korematsu said that was not right and took it all the way to the supreme court. we're going

. >> the french petitioner said the suspect organizer of the paris attacks, abdelhamid abaaoud is dead. the prosecutor said he was killed wednesday in the raid in saint denis. they confirm the woman who blew herself up during the raid was his cousin. >> leaders are looking at better protecting citizens. one is the use of networks of sensors and cameras. we look at the new technology. >> a ripple of gunfire, recorded and identified by smart rooftop sensors. they are sent within seconds to the police. >> this is kind of interesting here. this is an accumulation of gunfire vents over the last 30 days. >> along with precise details of the shooting. the technology is in use in 90 cities, mostly in the u.s., part of an effort to combat gun crime. european cities now considering how it can be used to help them respond to threats in much the same way a fire alarm works. >> they are clearly engaged in some gun play, testing this weapon out here. >> the particular case of the paris attacks, our technology could effectively be that fire alarm for gun shoots, allowing officials a get there sooner

earnest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> arguments number 18 roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took that would 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 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 series exploring 12 historic supreme court decisions. tonight's case is schenck versus the united states, a case from 1919 involving freedom of speech around world war i. it also gave rise to two of the supreme court's most quoted phrases. falsely shouting fire in a theater, and clear and present danger. let me introduce our guests who will tell us more about this interesting case to take your calls and questions. beverly gage is a history professor at yale university specializing in 20th century american history. she's the author of "the day wall street exploded: a story of america in its

petitioner versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments on number 18.

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. i'll say this, too, the 7-5 is not the same kind of jury verdict that you would have in a guilt phase because of this backstop, 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, made 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

when there is more perfectly available and possible superior yore remedy available to the petitionery filing a federal habeas petition. >> there are several reasons. 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 such 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? you are 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 very case in a habeas case.

throughout the life cycle of the programs to support innovation and cross-discipline collaboration so petitioners build confidence in using these unusual and more fluid acquisition processes? are oversight processes engineered to encourage purposeful creativity or are practitioners motivated to find the best way to acquire that will eliminate the need to escalate to the next higher level for approval of something that is a little bit different, a little bit harder, a little bit more comprehensive? courage and cross-discipline engagement by leaders are more important here than are regulatory and legal changes. it's exciting to see some of the changes that are happening in some areas to enable the rapid acquisition of important i.t. capabilities, the ways in which some contract contracting shops today are exercising some of the unusual aspects of the f.a.r. are all government parties aware of what it takes to be successful under those circumstances? are we helping industry to understand what success and goodness will look like under those acquisition processes? what can we learn from the ongoing pr

not automatically but i think if you look what they were rejecting is the same argument that the petitionerasking the court to accept which is the long history of the unanimity means it is brought into the system but i will say this, the 7-5 is not the same kind of jury verdicts that you have any guilt phase because of this judicial fact, because of the other protections florida has put in place, so even if it is a 7-5 vote you still have the judge behind the jury where he must accept the findings unless they are not supported by evidence he or she can disagree for any number of reasons and give mercy for any reason and that happens a lot and so we find some cases and a brief where a man was convicted of murder, a horrible sexual assault and by virtue of the two convictions was eligible for the penalty. the jury heard all the evidence, made a recommendation that he received the death penalty and the judge said no i'm going to sentence him to life. so this court had some real benefits associated with judicial sentencing if you go back to when the court first upheld florida capital sentencing