the democracy works better. >> larry: wouldn't any person who took civics know how a supreme court works? >> that's right. and justice o'connor and justice souter and a lot of the other members of the court. fewer and fewer high school students seem to be take wag we had, 12th grade civics, and that's a problem. >> larry: why aren't they teaching it? >> well, you have to ask. we ask all the time and say please, please. and that isn't from our personal point of view. that's from the point of view that we work with the document, the constitution, that's part of my life, and you just read that and work with it and you see it presupposes that the public, the average citizen, the person who will decide what this country is like, the person where the power lies, the source of our laws that that person will know something about the government and how it works and will participate. >> larry: would you call the three-part system, courts and legislature, a genius concept? >> it was a brilliant concept. it came it's off the french enlightenment. it came out of the scottish enlightenment. and someho

. >> the supreme court uses the legislative history of a statue to interpret another. section 4, congress called that they did not do this under section 2. the plain language of this requires that we use statutory interpretation which holds the where a statue is used, that the supreme court explains that intent is bound in the text of the statute. >> counsel, let me ask you about the statute. it says that no prerequisite to voting. if you just look at the words, if you do not look at the history, which is what we all know that congress was concerned with that the southern states used to disenfranchise black people from voting, just look at the words. the disenfranchisement is not a qualification or prerequisite, it is a disqualification for people who have previously been qualified. if we go beyond this statute and we look at, not legislative history, which i agree is a pretty dubious reason. none of the history says that they meant to get rid of felon disenfranchisement in 1965 or 1982. if you look at other statutes, the national voter registration act of 1993 and the

now since the supreme court decided in the citizens united ruling the corporations are persons and have the first amendment right to spend money and political actions now come the next questions do they also have other rights of individuals do they have a right to privacy lots of the supreme court will be taking up this year as they've announced their decision to review the case of the f.c.c. versus eight in t. the basics here are the f.c.c. sought documents under the freedom of information act from eighteen to you as part of an investigation into claims of overcharges by the company and a program to provide equipment and services to schools now eighteen t. is seeking to block the release of those documents through an exemption the could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy because according to a third circuit court appeals judge corporations like human beings face public embarrassment harassment and stigma because of their involvement in law enforcement investigations but just because corporations can be embarrassed does that mean they deserve privacy like you or i we

the great thing about being a supreme court justice is you get to do homework every day. >> i told my son that, about being a judge. my job, because it describes the job of being a judge on an appeals court, including the supreme court, you read and you write. that's the job. my word processor behind me and i have briefs and endless readings in front of me and i did say that. i said if you do your homework really well you get a job where you can do homework the rest of your life, that's true. >> rose: do you believe for a man of your own intellectual curiosity and intellect this is the perfect job? >> i'm very, very lucky to have this job. and it is a perfect job. and if you say curiosity and intellect you mean you read or are interested in what other people are doing. and i, you could find out through literature and you can find out by talking. and you can find out by using your imagination. and for an appelate judge that's important. because when you're in that room, as you are, and writing and reading, what you are goinging to write is going to affect other people. so it's very imp

the supreme court, the institution, and the law. with associate justice of the supreme court stephen breyer. >> if you are going to decide under law, that means people called judges will make these decisions. in difficult case of interpretation, on the borders. all right. they'll make mistakes sometimes. so you have to decide you're going to support an institution that will do things that are sometimes very unpopular. you have to decide that. i have to decide that. very unpopular. and sometimes the judges will be wrong. and are are you prepared to do that. and what i want to show people in this book is why they might be prepared to do it. and that's, i tell some stories. and i try to explain how these decisions, many of them, current how they look through my eyes. i can't say i have the secret. i can say this is how i approach different areas and try to decide them. and i don't call it politics. and i don't call it just doing the good. and i certainly don't call it deciding everything on the basis of some historical fact though hist

united states supreme court rule. interestingly enough by justice stevens wrote the opinion to engage in free speech. >> aren't you empowered by the state civil rules to discipline him for conduct unbecoming of a state employee? do you think his actions are unbecoming of a state employee? >> his actions are offensive. but you know, conduct unbecoming is one of those empty vessel statements. what it mean has never really been fleshed out. >> do you think this is unbec e unbecoming? >> certainly it's unbecoming of civil discourse, it's unbecoming of common courtesy, and quite frankly, i feel embarrassed for mr. armstrong, you know, that he has this unwanted attention. but again, anderson, this is speech put on a blog. now, if there's conduct that's verified -- for instance, if a personal protection order was sought by mr. armstrong and granted in the michigan civil service or disciplinary code we could start looking at things in terms of perhaps sending to an employee assistance program. >> so if there was a restraining

he is as you know an associate justice of the united states supreme court. he was appointed by president clinton if 1994, prior to that he served for 14 years on the federal appeals court. he was also chief counsel to the senate judiciary committee. over 16 years on the supreme court, he has emerged as something of a counterpoint to the conservative views of justice antonin scaleia. his new book about the responsibilities of the supreme court it is called "making our democracy work" a judges view. i am very pleased to have justice breyer back on this program. welcome. the last time you were here you were the most junior justice. >> yes. >> rose: are you no longer that. >> no. >> rose: but you were the second longest serving junior justice in the history of the court. >> yes. >> rose: what did that mean? >> it meant i could almost achieve immortality by being the answer to a trivia question. there is no difference. the junior justice opens the door in the conference in case somebody forgot a piece of paper or wants a cup of coffee or something and you hand it

it's just like we do in the supreme court. we need friends of the court briefs. we need friends of john conyers, you know, testimony. the other things we need to do is to, we need to make sure that people are made aware that the 14th amendment is under assault, and that means the bill of rights is under assault. and if they will go there, they will go to the ourth amendment. if they will go there they could go to the 13th amendment. nolikely, but they will go to other amendments. they certainly have repeatedly tried to pass amendments that circumscribe the first amendment. so whatever you can tell us to do, this is the dream team. and so, i want to now open up questions from the audience for the panelists to do we have a microphone? if not, if you say it i will repeat it. yes. no microphone? okay. >> i'm executive director and the government sector of t united states colored troops. to celebrate those of us who served in the civil war, and sisters. and i'm also chair of the d.c. regime. i have been in u.s. court of appeals right now gordon versus biden that start

and we appealed to the 3rd circuit court and i'm now prepared to take this to the supreme court. >> gretank you sir. >> thank you. >> greta: our next guest hates the ordinance and loves the court ruling. boston mayor joins us live senior litigation council for latino justice one of the groups that filed the lawsuit against the hazeleton ordinance. good evening your name is mayor but you are not the mayor is that correct? >> not that i know of. >> greta: why do you dislike this ordinance? >> we think the appeals court made two critical and important points. one it acknowledged this law will have a discriminatory impact against latinos and other immigrants. latinos whether they are immigrants or not by its nature and employment regulation. as for housing, it would prohibit families who have someone without status from living in hazel ton and the court made the key point that the federal policy is not to drive people without status -- to make them homeless and drive them from one locality to another. the federal policy is to discourage them from getting jobs not to make them destitute and th

supreme court nominees? isn't such a bad thing when it comes to supreme court nominees? specifically on the issue is when you apply, and when you are sitting there considering the nomination? >> this differentiates myself and ms. ayotte. i would not have, and the reason i would not have is that my litmus test is the ability to the rule of law. an application of the rule of law to the facts and not legislating from the bench, and the nominee needs to demonstrate that they have that fidelity to the law. there isa tissue that covers as a litmus test, but you should be able to get answers that are being asked. ms. ayo -- >> ms. ayotte? >> we need to not have a double standard. what i did not agree with justice sotomayor, -- while i did not, she had a record, but the other did not have a record, and for her being the dean and objecting to rotc on campus -- i am going to look at the litmus test, and we need to make sure that we get a president elected in 2012 to nominate a conservative justices. >> mr. binnie? >>

he kealed all the way to the california supreme court and lost there. he went to the court of last resort, and that was the united states supreme court. he had the courage, the stamina and the belief to bring his case all the way to the united states supreme court, and he won. his name was yip wo. pluzz >> if there is any one thing we can learn from his example, it is that we have to stand up for what we believe, and that is what he did. of course we have an elementary school named after him in san francisco, but i think it is people like him that we really owe the legacy and the great accomplishment that we are celebrating today with three members of the board of supervisors and our president. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, jeff. he added a little substance to this day. let's continue on and get to the good stuff here. let me tell you something about our next performer. he is a 17-year-old senior at sara togethera high school. for -- four years ago he learned how to play the chinese bamboo flute. he mastered the art and skills of playing five other

there is a special nature of the supreme court. why should it be above the political gamesmanship the characterizes legislative policy making? alito must know that the court was applying simple rules to simple procedures. if he is correct, he shines a light on civil use -- civil lawyers using civil procedure correctly to desire -- to attain the desired outcome. the court needs to appear to play its part well. he notes that there are many ways to play hamlet and many actors to do so but at the end of the day the audience must believe the actor played his part well. i am wondering if one who reads this decision in its entirety my question whether the court played its part well. finally, i would like to bring up politics. it seems like a phenomenon and contemporary political debate is polarization of parties. one might assert that the distance between conservatives and liberals is less pronounced. on the famous seven. scale they might clustered around a three and five. now might be closer to it to end a six or even a one and a seventh,

under the standard of the supreme court. ts have reached it either. >> thinks you. -- thank you. >> mr. haygood, you have 50 minutes. >> the evidence reflects compelling discrimination. discrimination on account of race. >> use said unintentional? >> discrimination on account of race. our argument is that the impact of the disenfranchisement law results in discrimination. >> disparity not discrimination. >> it is more than disparity. these disparities a rise from and results in discrimination. >> you are mincing words. even there is an intent to discriminate region either there is an intent to discriminate, the system in washington intentionally discriminate based on race, or the other possibility is that there are disparities with no intent. >> congress expressly amended the voting rights act in 1982. >> i am not asking about congress. >> it does not require an intent test. >> there is no intent then? >> say that again. >> what do you think the situation is here? is there disparity or discrimination? >> racial discrimination

supreme court rulings on local gun regulations in california. >> among the first results of the supreme court decisions on guns: gun shows like this may become more common in california. >> woodruff: plus an encore look at jeffrey brown's profile of tap dance great maurice hines passing the torch and tradition to a new generation. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: the east coast kept a weather eye on the sea today, waiting for the arrival of hurricane earl. the storm weakened some during the day, but still had winds of 115 miles an hour. in kill devil hills, north carolina, the day dawned on a relatively calm sea. but a few hundred miles out in the atlantic, the hurricane swirled ever closer to the state's outer banks. >> this eye looks like it's about 25 miles wide. >> lehrer: the

reporting live at the supreme court, abc7 news. >> all right, thanks a lot, rebecca. >>> and leesburg, va., man is accused of despair -- a leesburg, va., man is accused of killing his wife. steven combs-lafleur. she died at the scene. he is charged with first-degree murder and is being held without bond. >>> a froedtert man is dead after police were called to a domestic dispute today on stock market street -- a frederick mann. -- man. he fired a round, and officers fired back. the man died from a gunshot wounds, and police are now investigating whether he died from the officer firing or from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. >>> hundreds of people turned out for a memorial service today to honor the life and legacy of a ron walters be and a service was held on the howard university campus -- the legacy of ron walters. a service was held on a hard university campus. he was a civil rights activists, scholar, and political analyst. friends and colleagues said he lived and taught the life he lived. >> he was an active scholar and a scholar active list. he wrote about what he knew, indian al

supreme court. -- that could be the next the case before the supreme court. host: democrats' line. caller: here is a concept -- free air commercials for all qualified candidates. how about that concept? that would get rid of all the bickering and the viciousness about unions. host: ok, to discuss your question -- guest: my recollection of that part of the act, the voluntary financing bill -- i think the way the work is to give vouchers to candidates to use for air time -- host: how does it work in society where people are increasingly using the internet for news and candidates getting on youtube? is free air time having the same effect -- guest: it may not be. most of the spending is going into tv commercials, but there is a lot of resistance to that, and a lot of it comes from broadcasters, who get paid a lot of money by candidates and groups around election time, and to resist this kind of thing. they also make the argument that viewers don't necessarily -- that is not necessarily what they want t

when that when that supreme court upholds the rule of law and says that we have done exactly what we were entitled to do under the law this nation's going to throw such a fit what is that what is that i have to clarify what is it that the supreme court is going to validate here on the last time i was on your program was over that snyder case and it's coming up on october the sixth this supreme court's going to rule on whether or not we have a first amendment or dot and when and what they're going to do is uphold the rule of law because what they're going to tell the country is that your fifth throwing is not going to cause i get it way how are you talking about that bob rule in the nation see here's what you've got going on with snyder he's got a case that he filed against this in you get a program on it and i read during the program on it and you know what it says i think to me because if you abide by god's law then why is it also that you then turn to the american constitution and leaching it out of trial that lawsuit no i did not say while he was saying you live by god's law wh

it's just like we do in the supreme court. we need friends of the court briefs. we need friends of john conyers, you know, testimony. the other things we need to do is to, we need to make sure that people are made aware that the 14th amendment is under assault, and that means the bill of rights is under assault. and if they will go there, they will go to the fourth amendment. if they will go there they could go to the 13th amendment. not likely, but they will go to other amendments. they certainly have repeatedly tried to pass amendments that circumscribe the first amendment. so whatever you can tell us to do, this is the dream team. and so, i want to now open up questions from the audience for the panelists to do we have a microphone? if not, if you say it i will repeat it. yes. no microphone? okay. >> i'm executive director and the government sector of the united states colored troops. to celebrate those of us who served in the civil war, and sisters. and i'm also chair of the d.c. regime. i have been in u.s. court of appeals right now gordon versus biden that

efforts toward our supreme court justices?uest: there is lobbying at the federal level, but there is none reported for the supreme court. of course -- host: they do not have to run for term. they are appointed for life. guest: i'm sure there are a advocates hoping to impress supreme court justices, but we do not have any way to track lobbying efforts for the supreme court. host: stan diego, good morning. cut -- san diego, good morning. caller: i am a 62-year-old veteran and i'm very happy about these young people who are getting involved. to the 18-year-old who called earlier, i would say, keep at it, young fellow and remember, the bigger government gets, the fewer rights you have. thank you, c-span. host: but go on to lincoln, nebraska. lincoln, neb., you're on the air. caller: guess, i have a question for -- i have a question for -- host: we are born to put you on hold so you can clear that up. -- going to put you on hold so you can clear that up. remember to turn your tv down. washington d.c., good morning. caller: my conce

three days ago in one of the most closely watched supreme court cases this term, graham versus florida, the united states superior court forbid the sentences of a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide crime. they found such a sentence is consistent with basic principles of decency. i'm proud to say that my firm was co-counsel for the juvenile in this case and wrote the brief for the juvenile in the court. this decision gives our clients, terrance graham, who had received the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. the bad acts he committed as a teenager are not representative of his true character and gives him some realistic opportunity to gain release before the end of his term. i personally understand the importance of the work that you do. but our nation's fiscal crisis threatens your very existence. as predicted 25 years ago by chief justice rose berg , she said the following. we have no difficulty, it seems finding sufficient funds to build more prisons. one of california's largest industries. but each year, public defenders a

supreme court ever stopping by our studios here, but it happened today. we spent some time with justice steven breyer, appointed by president clinton. and residing on the liberal side of the court. he's out with a new book today about how the court works. including mistakes the court has made over the years. i started out by asking justice breyer if he's concerned that just 1% of those americans polled in a recent survey knew his name. >> it's not a problem that people don't know my name. i don't think when i read some, i read people know more than the name of the three stooges than know the names of the supreme court justices, that's all right. but if more people know the names of the three stages and not that there are three branches of the government, that's not all right. what people should know is about the institution that exists and how it works and why it works the way it does. and that concerns them. >> do you think bush v. gore hurt the credibility of the modern court? >> yes. >> irreparably? >> no. >> for how long? >> i don't know. that's up to

supreme court. justice steven breyer. >>> standing up to bullying in school. what most kids already know and what parents need to know about the problem. >>> and sudden death. a high school ball player's close call in the end zone, and what some are calling the miracle that saved his life. "nightly news" begins now. captions paid for by nbc-universal television

. >> back in january, in my state of the union address, a ward of the danger posed by a supreme court ruling called citizens united. this decision overturns decades of law. it gave the special interest the power to spend without limit and without public disclosure, to run ads in order to influence elections. now as an election approaches, it is not just the theory. we can see for ourselves how destructive to our democracy this can become. we have seen it in the flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interest, using front ribs with misleading names. we all know who is behind these ads -- we don't know who is behind these ads are who is paying for them. they are able to swing freely and are to turn an election. voters are able to make an informed judgment about the group's motivations. anyone running these ads would have to stand by their claims, and foreign controlled corporations would be restricted from spending money to influence elections, just as they were before the supreme court opened up this loophole. this is common sense. in fact, this is the kind of proposal that