supreme court that we essentially have a cookie-cutter court now. they are appellate judges promoted. no earls or bill douglass, robert jacksons. i can think of a republican who fits that mold, but i can't now. what impact does that have on the court? >> i'm very critical of it. it's not -- eight of the nine have been federal court appeal judges briefly. kagan had not been that. she was solicitor general to being on the supreme court. the cookie-cutters are troubling in other ways to me. they can claim to have a justice raised in new york, but there's two justices that grew up in mississippi, and one that was appointed west of the mississippi, and that's justice kennedy. look at the most recent justices and where they went to school. kagan, princeton and harvard. alito, princeton, john roberts went to harvard and then law school. i think that leads to my focus that is very troubling. also there's a narrow range of experience. few of the current justices spent significant amounts of time as trial judges or lawyers. society new have that experience. i

will decide, but one concern is that the supreme court, it's not the role of the supreme court to be deciding after the district court already looked at the experts and already looked at wal-mart's experts and the plaintiff's experts and chose to credit the plaintiffs' experts in this case about the common practices and the effect commonality that those factual findings were taken and given respect by the court of appeals and are supposed to form the underpinning of the supreme court as well, so the balancing of that, how unfair this might be to the defendant versus how fair this maybe to the plaintiffs, how much are the issues ultimately common issues versus very discreet differences that are unrelated region to region, manager to manager, those are the kinds of things we actually have a quite extensive factual record on, and that is a record that is supposed to be the basis upon which the ultimate applicability of the legal principles will apply. the supreme court is not supposed to be trying to figure out the facts as if the district court hadn't already, through a very exte

supreme court. so it's impossible that people will separate everything they think or believe from how they ajudicate. but secondly, i'm not so sure that's necessarily a bad thing. what's wrong with having some tension on the supreme court about how we view these issues? why should it be my way or the highway, one way or the other way? >> i agree with you completely. i'm with james madison. he said you throw a bunch of people interest a room, let them hash out an issue based on their own points of view and you will come to consensus that will serve not everyone, but a lot of people. what disturbs me with these justices and with the current justices is we have a group of people saying, i know what the constitution says. it's just what you said, my way or the highway, that we now have a segment of the judiciary and scholars who say the constitution means this. i know it means this and it only means this. tavis: are those strict constructionists? >> yeah, but thee vague. the genius of the constitution w

supreme court. so he made his mark as a professional, figuring out how to come up with an argument that five justices would agree with and i think that brings them to the chief justiceship within extraordinarily well developed skill set that i think over time will make him an extremely influential chief justice. okay, what are we turn now to some of the cases they work has heard this term and decided. last week the court issued a decision that i know has disturbed a lot of people in the country and it involves a group of people engaging in a very hateful ugly protest at the funeral of a soldier who was slain in iraq and by one vote the court held that these people were shielded from tort liability in a suit brought to the father for the attention of infliction of emotional distress. walter what were the courts thinking there? >> this case involves marine lance corporal snyder who was killed in the line of duty in iraq. his father selected the catholic church in their hometown of westminster, marylan

[laughter] one day this might think the supreme court. guess the question for both of you is when do you think will make the court and what are your thoughts on what the court will do with it once it gets there? >> when will be decided by the supreme court is likely but not certain. it's possible it wouldn't go to this record if the court feels he formally upheld it. they struck down a major act of congress and the supreme court would have taken obviously. uniform among the circuits it's possible they might not but i think at this point the expectations are such the justices will answer it. that means i think we can probably identify with some decision of exactly when it will be resolved and the will be the last week in june of 2012. and i say that because the case is well assuming the arguments in april and may in the circuit that would mean i think a decision of the circuits before they break and lose their set of clerks in august and the decisions than which means they filed in the fall and would go on the argument calendar. it doesn't

americans and assert their rights in court do you think that this case would have gone to the supreme courthave not been completely relentless did they not have the money to spend i mean this case is already eleven hears in the making court after court after court has actually ruled in favor of the women but wal-mart has kept fighting it all the way up. well for the supreme court to agree to hear the case on this on the grounds that wal-mart's appealing shows in the first place of friendliness towards corporate america that i think everyone should find a little bit disturbing but an issue for wal-mart isn't just the exact dollar amount that's could be handed out should the case to be you know rule in the plaintiff's favor what's at issue is whether or not we can use things like statistical studies that show without a doubt that women do worse at wal-mart than men as evidence of discrimination so it would open them up to other suits by other other classes and it would open up other huge corporations at the same kind of suits which they ought to be brought in my opinion and that's why you see

and i am so glad the supreme court -- because i was worried the supreme court would shut them down. like in minnesota and other places -- the whole thing would be going down a tube. even though i did not agree with what they are saying, i always believe that they have a right as long as it is peaceful. host: go ahead, charlie, we got your point. guest: margie phelps. a couple of things. of course, he is right. we did not carry any kind of weapon and we never will. i noticed on yesterday's evening news that the father who brought this lawsuit told katie couric that now there was going to be blood in the streets and the supreme court was going to be the blame. so he has gone to be ostensible lover of his government to an anarchist. that is what happens when you are not on the right side. with all the respect to the caller, and i appreciate his comments, but that notion of live and let live while the neighbor is sitting his way to hell is exactly what you are not supposed to do and exactly what the bible is talking about when it says love thy neighbor. and we get flung an hour phase 10

[laughter] one day this might think the supreme court. guess the question for both of you is when do you think will make the court and what are your thoughts on what the court will do with it once it gets there? >> when will be decided by the supreme court is likely but not certain. it's possible it wouldn't go to this record if the court feels he formally upheld it. they struck down a major act of congress and the supreme court would have taken obviously. uniform among the circuits it's possible they might not but i think at this point the expectations are such the justices will answer it. that means i think we can probably identify with some decision of exactly when it will be resolved and the will be the last week in june of 2012. and i say that because the case is well assuming the arguments in april and may in the circuit that would mean i think a decision of the circuits before they break and lose their set of clerks in august and the decisions than which means they filed in the fall and would go on the argument calendar. it doesn't

why aren't the distinctions that the distinctions from the supreme court's analysis? >> two responses. first, i question -- in looking at this, we think this issue is moot as a practical matter. if this court upholds the designation of al harmain oregon, al harmain oregon does not appear to be doing things. it is not clear who that organization would be coordinating with. there seems to be a strong -- >> i guess i do not understand. they would be an entity, but they could not spend any money. the entity would not cease to exist. >> we have to go to the specific argument the professor is making. they are free to any and all independent advocacy. that was relied on by the supreme court and by this court in a the the hlp versus treasuries case, the law of the circuit. the only argument they possibly have is that they want to work with al harmain. >> tell me under your view if they are already free to do this. the independent group wants to set up a press conference al harmain with -- with al harmain and have their chief spokesperson's linked arm in arm and say we are work

>> on the supreme court, they can do almost anything. [laughter] rule 23 does not prohibit an appellate court to redirect a class. they do it all the time under rule 23f, but there's nothing prohibiting the supreme court saying as defined problem as this is and carve off of this bit and redefine this, there's a class that's certifiable, but we can send it down with certain instructions, i think that's well within the supreme court's power to do. adam may have a different take. >> no, i agree with that. it's the game of life. everybody winds up with a retirement slot. there's a lot of ways to get there, but certainly any number of manageability options and c4 which the ninth circuit did, but not explicitly, but there's plenty of tools. remember too that rule 23 is a management tool to permit the court to efficiently hear a case. that's the construct. it isn't to give an advantage to one side or the other. there are plenty of management tools built into rule 23 and more broadly of course are allowed to, you know, hear cases and manage cases

i mean it is clear that the supreme court judges should be. held accountable to the same standards as every other court there's no reason why the highest court in the land should have the lowest standards but so far you know it isn't it isn't binding on them it's clear that those are the ethical rules that they should live by but there's no enforcement mechanism so that's what we're working on next and that would be the legislation yes you know what about impeachment the constitution is quite clear that impeachment any federal official can be impeached including a federal judge it would have to regime the house of representatives i think we could forget about it for the next eighteen or twenty months our long it is until the next several actions but. if the democrats were to take control of the house is it conceivable again this is never to the best my knowledge you know and i don't i don't i don't think we're there yet you know and this is why we've asked asked the department of justice to to collect more information as the lawyers for the fed

thankful and we praise his name for it. >> chris: then miss phelps, how do you explain another supreme court ruling in 2003 in lawrence v. texas, the court ruled by a margin of 6-3, that a law prohibiting sexual acts between same-sex couples was unconstitutional. they said there was right of privacy for consensual same-sex couples. is that also god's will? >> no, in fact, it's a curse from god. in fact, we picketed outside the supreme court the day they were having those arguments. and i recall specifically my dad and i being there and my brothers and we told that crowd waiting out there, yea, yea all ye having business before this court, bend over. it's sad that the supreme court is the conscience of this nation. and on that day, this nation, when they issued that opinion, this nation crossed a line of no return with the lord good almighty. >> chris: if i may, ma'am, you're the arbiter of when it's god's will and when it's god's curse. >> we're not the arbiter, mr. wallace. we can just read plain words. and we know that the scriptures are full of passages when a nation has crossed the line

and so this happens, i think, all over the constitutional jurisprudence as elaborated by the supreme court. and so i think this is, in some sense, kind of a banal observation about the way the court elaborates doctrine. >> i see my time's expired, so we may be able to get back to that later. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator lee. senator coons. >> thank you, mr. liu, for your preparation and your family's willingness to stand by you through this long process, and i'm grateful, madam chair, for the chance to have visited with you in person, have reviewed your writings and your work and to spend time with you in this hearing today. i think you would be a very capable jurist, and we'd be blessed to have you join the ninth circuit. i know there's been a lot of questions raised about your writing as an act demic and how that would or would not influence your work. .. the first half of the article rejects the idea that courts have any role in rights in the social and economic realm. that is consistent with the instructions of the supreme court in this area where in case after case th

of commerce has one or one cases these days and part of the highest court in the land the last supreme court term the chamber of commerce which filed for the court briefs in nearly every case involving business interests won thirteen out of sixteen cases thirteen out of sixty this new study corroborates other data showing that today every single justice is more likely to side with the chamber than the justice who held their seat twenty five years ago a pretty good percentage energy justice john roberts who i might add was a bush appointee and made two million bucks a year as a corporate attorney before joining the court so why the sudden uptake in pro business rulings on the supreme court overall here's share some answers in no highs or reporter and blogger at think progress and welcome thank you it's good to be here tom you have a neighborhood that even though highs are great in i'm curious what if first of all the entire court or just the conservatives are shifting toward. eight actually let me make this a two part question shifting toward the right and b. why do we call going on the conse

and then the supreme court affirmed that. but what justice alito said was, look, you're reading free speech protections too broadly. that this was a verbal assault and it does not hurt the public debate in america for this man to have been able to claim some damages. >> now, it wasn't reflected in this case because it was an 8-1 case, but in terms of number of cases that are very evenly balanced in the court, any time somebody -- there's a change in the composition of the court, people are watching closely. this is the time of year when people do tend to announce that they're going to leave. is there any expectations any of the sitting justices are going to leave? and might that affect the contours of the court and future decisions? >> it would definitely affect the court in this because it was really very much in terms of precedent at the court. this was consistent. i think no matter what kind of change membership we have down the road, we'll still see this kind of ruling. you're right, springtime is when we have had resigna

we have to of the supreme court advocates of our time. o is talk a little bit about the court in general and then turn to some of the major cases the court is hearing this term. then hopefully we will have time for some questions from the audience. let's start with the roberts court. it is 2011. it is quite a different court from 2005. it probably win or 11 -- 1112 years without a change in its membership. -- it probably went 11 or 12 years without a change in its membership. tell us a little bit about how you think the changes in membership has affected the court, held roberts court in 2011 differs from the court that preceded it. >> i apologize for turning my back on those of you over there. you'll have to watch the television screen. this is an interesting route, we cannot see everybody. dan asked me to give information about the court as it presently exists. i did some gathering of statistics, nothing secret here, but i thought it was kind of interesting. as dan mentioned, there have been for appointments in the last five years. previo

who is the chamber of commerce's new best friend the supreme court a new study coauthored by court of appeals judge richard posner reveals that the chamber of commerce has won a lot of cases these days in front of the highest court in the land the last supreme court term the chamber of commerce which filed from the corporates in nearly every case involving business interests won thirteen out of sixteen cases thirteen out of sixty this new study corroborates other data showing that today every single justice is more likely to side with the chamber than the justice who held their c. twenty five years ago a pretty good percentage energy justice john roberts who i might add was a bush appointee and made two million bucks a year as a corporate attorney before joining the court so why the sudden uptick in pro-business rulings on the supreme court overall there sure are some answers in no hisor reporter and water at think progress in welcome thank you good to be here tom so i have a name that i even know has a great. i'm curious what if first of all the entire quarter or just the conservativ

comments@captioncolorado.com >> couric: tonight, the supreme court says protesters are free to picket the funerals of fallen soldiers. an angry father has this to say about the justices. >> they don't have the common sense god gave a goat. >> couric: i'm katie couric. also tonight, libya's qaddafi rallies supporters and tries but fails to take back an oil port from the rebels. a former child star becomes a victim of elder abuse. >> i felt trapped, scared. >> couric: and a special investigation: top college athletes with criminal records their recruiters never bothered to check. captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news world headquarters in new york, this is the "cbs evening news" with katie couric. >> couric: good evening, everyone. there was outrage across the country when antigay protesters showed up at the funerals of fallen soldiers shouting and jeering in earshot of the grieving families, but the supreme court ruled today those protests, as hateful and hurtful as they may be, are protected the by the first amendment. the lone descenter in the eight to one decision, samuel alito.

of the premier supreme court advocates and analysts of our time. what we thought we would do is talk a little bit about the roberts court generally, then turned to some of the major cases the court is hearing this term and then hopefully we will have time for some questions from the audience so let's start with the roberts court. it is 2011. it is quite a different court from 2005. the court went 11 or 12 years without a change in its membership. over the fast -- past five years we have we have had four new justices. they are different in a lot of ways from their predecessors. ted, it's can you tell us a little bit about how you think a change in membership has affected the court, how the roberts court circa 2011 differs from the rehnquist court that preceded it? >> thanks thank stan and i apologize for turning my back on those of you over there. you'll have to watch the television screen but this is an interesting broom. dan asked me to give a little talk about, or give some information about the court as it recently exists and i did some gathering

. >> suzanne: a potential billion- dollar battle takes center stage at the supreme court tomorrow. it's a massive sex- discrimination lawsuit against retail giant walmart. the suit claims millions of former and current employees were discriminated against because they are women. as darren gersh reports, the issue before the justices is who should represent the interests of all those women. >> reporter: for years, chris kwapnoski trained men who were soon promoted over her at wal- mart. eventually, she asked a manager what she had to do to get ahead. >> and he told me i need to blow the cobwebs off my makeup and doll up. >> reporter: at the time, kwapnoski was working in the back of the store taking in merchandise. >> if i'm going to doll up, i'm going to wear nice clothes, high heels, whatever. i could just see myself scooting across the concrete floor and breaking an ankle or driving a forklift in a skirt and heels. and i'm not sure what makeup would have to do with my daily performance as far as my job goes. >> reporter: the key issue before the supreme court is whether more than

and now it's up to the supreme court to decide if it can proceed as a class action. if it does go forward, it's not the supreme court that would ultimately hear it but people are certainly going to be watching, david. as you know, this case could have a huge impact on employers far smaller than walmart. >> major case for women watching and for walmart. linsey, thank you. >>> still ahead on "world news" this sunday night, more than 5 billion text messages sent every day in this country. so, why can't we text 911? and we ask, could those messages help save lives? >>> why did the vice president's staff force a reporter to stay in a storage room for more than an hour? >>> and the huge poisonous snake on the loose from the zoo tonight. they are still looking. desperate for nighttime heartburn relief? for many, nexium helps relieve heartburn symptoms caused by acid reflux disease. talk to your doctor about your risk for osteoporosis-related bone fractures if you take multiple daily doses of nexium for a long time. possible side effects include headache, diarrhea, and abdom

if it does go forward, it's not the supreme court that will ultimately hear it.but this case could have a huge impact on employers much smaller than walmart. linsey davis, abc ththththththt media provides a skewed view of reality that makes them they don't measure up. they say too much time online can also cut into a child's sleep, homework and their physical activity. >>> well, on to march madness, espn says of the nearly 6 million blanket entries on its online tournament, only two picked the right final score. >> right. butler and uconn booked their place on sad. details on the last two teams to advance now from espn news. >>> good morning. i'm adnan virk. the final four is set for next saturday as the final games in the elite eight wraps up on sunday. the morris twins, shaka is smart. boom, bradford and to brandon rozelle, up looking for answers. elliott by 14 at the half. then in the second half, taylor, nice baseline drive in scoring off the glass. kansas with under four to go, joey rodriguez underneath. great pass up top. 71-61. vcu advanced. >>> second hal

and that's the issue that the supreme court will decide. t whether walmart is guilty, but whether hundreds of thousands of women should all be part of one giant lawsuit. at least one justice suggested he's troubled by lower court decisions that allowed the lawsuit to proceed. anthony kennedy also said he's unsure what was the unlawful policy at walmart. >> i've had a very positive experience at walmart, like thousands of other women. >> reporter: but outside court, a plaintiff told about being held to a different standard when she asked for a promotion. >> i was told to blow the cobwebs off my makeup and to doll up. >> reporter: walmart says it has a long history of promoting women and fighting discrimination. if the case goes ahead, it could end up costing america's largest employer billions of dollars. danielle nottingham, cbs news, at the supreme court. >>> this morning on "the early show," more of erica hill's one-on-one interview with president obama. i'm betty nguyen. this is the "cbs morning news." depression is a serious medical cond

supreme court asking them to grant cert in the case in virginia. the administration has opposed that decision to expedite, but that is now before the court. the court will make a decision on whether they intend to expedite this case. >> i have a number of questions for the record. i will submit them in writing. my final question is on nih. several years ago we passed a reform bill to this committee that was signed into law. that bill was a reauthorization bill that lapsed several years ago and is up for renewal. i will encourage chairman at upton to have a hearing and we reauthorization. in that was the creation of a common fund to try to get more cross-examination between the various nih organizations. have you followed that? if so, can you give an update on how you believe that common fund is operating? >> i know that the new director of the nih has taken a great interest in the common fund and has been actively involved in not only seeking to fill gaps in research, but directing it to the most promising options that he feels in the research fiel

and frankly i was not happy with it until recently and now we have a new chairman of the supreme court and i'm sure that the situation will improve for the main thing i was unhappy with was not corruption bribes or anything like that because it was too soft says hoagie for no that's not what i was unhappy with i was unhappy with the fact that judges good would disqualify themselves from a case if they thought it was too dangerous. and so it happened that all the judges in the republic would simply disqualify themselves if you so say twelve defendants who were found guilty and sentenced to long terms by the petty gore scored their all in do a show. minute crimes and their guilt was proven but i'm sure that had they been tried in english it would have received much shorter terms. i'm not saying that the judges in this terrible region were biased all i'm saying is that english judges had no moral right to disqualify themselves. did they rescue themselves because they fear driven to what they claim that they feared for their lives when i told them look police officers too can get killed do

and i am so glad the supreme court -- because i was worried the supreme court would shut them down. like in minnesota and other places -- the whole thing would be going down a tube. even though i did not agree with what they are saying, i always believe that they have a right as long as it is peaceful. host: go ahead, charlie, we got your point. guest: margie phelps. a couple of things. of course, he is right. we did not carry any kind of weapon and we never will. i noticed on yesterday's evening news that the father who brought this lawsuit told katie couric that now there was going to be blood in the streets and the supreme court was going to be the blame. so he has gone to be ostensible lover of his government to an anarchist. that is what happens when you are not on the right side. with all the respect to the caller, and i appreciate his comments, but that notion of live and let live while the neighbor is sitting his way to hell is exactly what you are not supposed to do and exactly what the bible is talking about when it says love thy neighbor. and we get flung an hour phase 10

well first of all he's not the deputy chairman he's just a regular member of the republic supreme court second i don't have time to comment on such statements i have far more important things to do third i didn't hear him say i only saw that reported on the internet fourth and this is the most important thing a judge who publicly criticise the head of the republic can no longer function as a judge he has no legal right to do this if he were to do this i think that this supreme court of the russian federation would have to address this because they have no right to criticize to the head of the republic i didn't hear this either i just read it. all right is just something that some person wrote so i cannot comment on this. what's your general opinion on your republic's judicial system. are you happy with it i know that only a small number of cases result in a guilty verdict. that would go on and frankly i was not happy with it until recently and now we have a new chairman of the supreme court and i'm sure that the situation will improve. one thing i was unhappy with was not corruption bri

it eight hundred eighty six bancroft was the court reporter for the united states supreme court and he was on the he was on the job well that court was hearing arguments in a case called santa clara county versus the southern pacific railroad although at the time the chief justice moore is an ironic way but it was just about a simple boring x. issue that case would ultimately redefine america forever if it wasn't for that case scott walker wouldn't even be governor now because corporate money couldn't have helped him get elected ok senator on whether or not the corporation the southern pacific railroad owed santa clara money six years' worth of unpaid property taxes again it just all really monday and stuff ultimately the court let stand a lower california court decision because they said it was the state of california is issue not a federal issue case closed not a constitutional debate you can read online on the website and supreme court itself nothing there about corporations being able to elect governors but here's where everything went a little ways as one of its six defenses in th

thousand nine hundred six in the case of santa clara county versus other pacific railroad the supreme court seems to agree with this argument but the truth we now know is that the court's decision was actually changed by a court reporter and a court never really did give corporations rights as persons still the idea struck stark excuse me because that same corrupt court reporter since then a corporate person an entity that is not born does not die is neither male nor female those need safe water and clean food cannot be put in prison it enjoys many of the same constitutional rights that you and i do exists there now a super purse. and this idea of corporations as people lay mostly quiet until the one nine hundred seventy s. when american corporations began to push it in front of the supreme court with decisions like buckley versus vallejo and first national bank versus bloody decisions that essentially expanded the rights of corporations based on the idea that they were persons but it wasn't until january of two thousand and ten last year that the supreme court really blew the doors up gran

the supreme court would be in recess anyway until the red mass. they will follow a cert petition. >> whoever loses would file a cert petition. the court may well sit on it for a few months to see what else is coming down which certainly makes sense for them to take both us and virginia. and i think that would happen again there are many scenarios of the time. one of the reasons we want a month which both of you who are not lawyers is precisely even if it's a little bit slower to avoid the situation where we prevail at the panel level and the government which with one hand says we want speedy resolution and the other hand kind of doesn't seem like they want a speedy resolution and then going en banc and we would not have this problem as i expect this week in in the fourth and the sixth circuit ironically whoever loses can go directly to the supreme court. and seek cert but it's not true if you one and that's kind of a sausage-making of litigation. >> well, i think we have, unfortunately, run out of time. but i suspect that you can pepper david with

but with most of the judges who would recuse themselves but i'm sure it the new chairman of the supreme court who shares my views on the issue will improve a situation or national issue not long ago you said quote. is in desperate need for new qualified workers with fresh i.d.'s with up to date knowledge and training and capable to use cutting edge technology unquote this produced quite a stir and in the shed here some people fear that you're preparing for a major reshuffle of your stuff. as that's true and you know it's not exactly like that with the let me put it this way. we do need a young blood but not in the top echelon. it seems to us after some analysis that we've done and they're familiar lashon on which is actually the most important one you consist of people aged fifty or sixty or even seventy years and quite often these older people are not quite open to new and daring ideas which i think it was so we thought it all over and we discussed it. and eventually we decided to refresh the middle ashleigh because i've noticed with the. there's a little bit of we do have more young people

united states supreme court, and on the best its court appeal to judge.ve as a legal and policy adviser in the department of education. he also has private practice experience at the prestigious law firm. and he is now a tenured constitutional law professor at the associate dean of the school of law. among other accolades he has received the university of california at berkeley's highest he has been a legal consultant award for distinguished scholarship. american law institute, and he is on the board of trustees of stanford university. as a professor has written extensively. "stanford law review," the iowa law review. there's no question that some of thought-provoking. as professor liu himself said in the role of a judge is quite different from that. again in his own words, and i to be an impartial objective and neutral arbiter of specific cases and controversies. that come before him or her. and the way the process works is the absolute fidelity to the applicable precedents and the language of the law, the statutes, regulations that are at issue in the c

binding bancroft and current court not a judge and i don't like that official slipped into the supreme court's record full constitutional rights personhood for corporations this despite the fact that the chief justice specifically said is court would not address the matter and despite the fact that every previous supreme court decision had explicitly denied those same rights to corporations and by the time bank john challenger acrobat was published that ed note a year later for the world to see chief justice wait was dead but bankruptcy so you could object but bankruptcy single sentence in that had no that has no legal authority has enabled corporations to use personhood claims the constitutional rights to wage war against unions against the middle class and even against our politicians that they didn't they don't like for over one hundred twenty years culminating in the citizens united decision before the supreme court two thousand. and with the help of republicans like scott walker all around the country these corporations are now claiming the absolute right to buy and sell politicians and o

we all know the most controversial issues by the supreme court united states. nd i am sure that they have more security issues than the district court's does. but it's really easy to critical about this unless you have personal experiences. and i'm not worried about the media. i think that they are responsible, just as this person on the panel. i'm more concerned about those people who are on the blog and had ill-conceived and ill at dies and the eldest on the issue before the court. and there's then not just me personally, but on the district court in arizona, a number of instances where we've had to send out the troops and we have had prosecution come back. so we're not going to be able to stop all of this or deter it. and i'm not opposed to the internet. i think they are important. but we've all seen in even the last year, what can be done in about a hobby is it any other way, but compared to what is recorded. and because they have their own agenda. what other kinds of matters would replace on the cameras, other than controversial matters? i mean, who wants t

class citizens the truth is they do but this isn't anything new in america since that fateful supreme court case in eight hundred eighty six southern pacific railroad versus santa clara county where the court reporter decided to take it upon himself to say that corporations are people and they should be granted all the same rights as people despite the fact that the supreme court had actually ruled the exact opposite corporations have staked a claim to more and more rights that used to be reserved just for actual living and breathing people including the first amendment right to free speech the fourth amendment right to privacy the fourteenth amendment right to equal protection under the law meanwhile women and minorities actual people have seen their rights steadily taken away in eight hundred fifty six and the dred scott case the supreme court ruled that people african-americans in this case are property that decision led directly to the civil war after which the thirteenth fourteenth and fifteenth amendments were passed history of slavery out of the constitution and guarantee equal right

but one concern is that the supreme court, it's not the role of the supreme court to be deciding after the district court already looked at the experts and already looked at wal-mart's experts and the plaintiffs experts, and chose to credit the plaintiffs experts in this case about the common actresses and the affect commonality. that those comments actualities were taken and given respect by the court of appeals. and are supposed to form the underpinning for the supreme court as well. so the balancing of that how unfair this might be to the defendant versus how fear this might be to the point of, how much are these issues ultimately common issues versus very discreet differences which are unrelated, region to region, manager to manager, those are the kinds of things that we actually have quite extensive factual record on. and that is a record that is supposed to be the basis upon which the ultimate applicability of those legal principles will apply. so the supreme court is not supposed to be trying to figure out the facts as if the court hadn't already, three very extensive proceeding

we all know the most controversial issues by the supreme court united states. nd i am sure that they have more security issues than the district court's does. but it's really easy to critical about this unless you have personal experiences. and i'm not worried about the media. i think that they are responsible, just as this person on the panel. i'm more concerned about those people who are on the blog and had ill-conceived and ill at dies and the eldest on the issue before the court. and there's then not just me personally, but on the district court in arizona, a number of instances where we've had to send out the troops and we have had prosecution come back. so we're not going to be able to stop all of this or deter it. and i'm not opposed to the internet. i think they are important. but we've all seen in even the last year, what can be done in about a hobby is it any other way, but compared to what is recorded. and because they have their own agenda. what other kinds of matters would replace on the cameras, other than controversial matters? i mean, who wants t

thanks a lot to the westboro baptist church when the supreme court decision allowing them to continue protesting at funerals with their god its agenda well that's right such many people it's a courtroom ever that all speech must be protected to have a free society i recently interviewed a phelps who is the son of westerly or fred phelps nate escaped there with a literal minute he turned eighteen i asked him if he felt his father sold a phobia might be explained by shame over again spirituous youth now i have no proof that fred phelps ever had a sweaty rendezvous with a handsome young coed who probably could have saved a whole lot of trouble if you just called for it back or think that fred's been chasing the field for fifty years by having secret encounters with strange men in trucks that bathrooms but i can ask the question thanks to freedom of speech but i'm not saying i know that fred phelps ever told larry craig literally or figuratively or that he's a male hustler. but i can say this fred phelps is a male hustler and i can say that thanks to parity law since i'm clearly joking so

they come up three different tests and so the supreme court is going to have to figure out how do i results that three-way circuit split on the courts? if i can conclude with telling you why does this matter, why do we care in terms of if this case the point of sloughs, if you can't of the class-action this is important. it's too be as a class action and for many people, employees, consumers and so forth, this is the only access they have come a meaningful access to the court system. so we want to be careful to protect the class action and make sure that people continue to get back pay to eradicate discrimination to make people whole and the tour's future misconduct. [applause] >> the next speaker is the council mcgwire was where his practice focuses on class-action defense so we will have a bit of perspective here and he's the co-author of the class action playbook and maintains the class-action countermeasures' blog which discusses considerations involved in the class-action defense so please welcome andrew. [applause] >> hello. can everybody hear me? i know adjusting the microphone is so